


1|::-| 






4- ^ 






:-^.*<;o^ .i 



^o^ 



V- 






V ^ ^ ^ " / . -%. 















-^^ : 



x^ ^^ 



xV' 



-,% 



,#■ r>'^^^''^X.//^^^^'''^ 












-"t^ ^ 









# 






^^ 



v.^^ 

^(^ ^^<^./^.; '^ 



<-''''^;.-^ A*^ 



^^O, 



t^^ 






^^^ ^^ 



.^^ 









%. ..V 



.'>,..^^' .- i<>?;i ■'■;. 



"3* 



^,, 






< 






^^^ 


^f'--= ^.^- :^>^5-^- -^,.^- "IP'"° ^ 


% 




'"■'■. 






ft "> ^ 










c 















.0^^ . 



^s ^. 









3 ^. 






\> . \ ' 



^ ' '> / '^ 



.;^.C^^; 



.<^ ^^- 






~o_ '..-• A'- ,.„ ^ 



^o " 



'^^"^/-^^N* -Q^i 






.^^<5 















*^ % 



C>^ '''/ 






Hq 



^> 












"^ 












^ ♦v^^^'^^^V'^^^ ^^^ 



>' .#" "^ ''^:^^.\#^ 



/ %■ '-'Mc;.. 









c {^ijk:}^^^^ ^^^/'V.^^ :^^^^{^^^ 

\'^m'/ v3S>^ v^^v ■ 






V 






^^^'^"^^V^:/"^'^ 






.^^' -^ 



- V 



''v<^^ 



SOURCE PROBLEMS 
IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 



/ 



HARPER'S PARALLEL 
SOURCE PROBLEM SERIES 

SOURCE PROBLEMS IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 
SOURCE PROBLEMS IN ENGLISH HISTORY 
SOURCE PROBLEMS IN MEDIEVAL HISTORY 
SOURCE PROBLEMS OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION 



HARPER & BROTHERS, NEW YORK 

[Established 1817] 



SEP 16 1918 



i 
HARPER*S PAk / 1 L SOURCE PROBLEMS 



SOURCE PROBLEMS 

IN 

UNITED STATES HISTORY 

BY 

ANDREW c. McLaughlin 

WILLIAM E. DODD 

MARCUS W. JERNEGAN 

ARTHUR P. SCOTT 

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY 
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO 




HARPER & BROTHERS PUBLISHERS 

NEW YORK AND LONDON 



t6- l^ll^f 



Vil6'3 



feCi.A5!i;j4 ,0 



SEP 16 1918 



Source Problems in United States History 



Copyright, 1918. by Harper & Brothers 

Printed in the United States of America 

Published August, 1918 






">ptP ./ 



^3; 



17 
CONTENTS 



PAGE 

Preface xi 

I. THE BATTLE OF LEXINGTON 

L The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 3 

H. Introductions to the Sources 6 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study 9 

IV. The Sources 13 

1. Force's Archives. (The form in which news of 

Lexington first reached the other Colonies) 13 

2. Massachusetts Committee of Safety to the 

Governor of Connecticut 14 

3. Extract of a Letter to a Gentleman near Phila- 

delphia, Dated Boston, April 20, 1775 . 14 

4. Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 

1876, (Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith 

to Governor Gage) 15 

5. Memorial History . of Boston, Justin Winsor, 

Editor 19 

6. Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, F. B. Dexter, 

Editor 21 

7. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections . 22 

8. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1877 23 

9. Force's Archives. (Account in the Salem 

Gazette) 24 

10. Account drawn up by the Provincial Congress, 

Watertown, April 26th, based on the 
depositions appended 26 

11. Depositions taken under oath, added to the 

account by the Provincial Congress , 28-36 
V 



Contents 

PAGE 

12. From a letter of the Rev. Wm. Gordon to a 

gentleman in England, dated May 17, 1775 36 

13. Narrative of the Excursion and Ravages of the 

King's Troops 42 

14. Additional depositions 43-44 

15. Phinney's History of the Battle of Lexington 45 

16. Depositions taken in 1825 46-52 

17. Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker . 53 

18. Historical Magazine 53 

IT. THE PRELIMINARIES OF THE REVOLUTION 

I. The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 57 

II. Introductions to the Sources 60 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study ..... 63 

IV. The Sources 69 

1. The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and 

Proved 69 

2. Tyler's Patrick Henry 73 

3. Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America 75 

4. Parliamentary History 76 

5. The Gentleman's Magazine and Historical 

Chronicle 88 

6. Massachusetts State Papers 92 

7. The Writings of John Dickinson ..... 94 

8. Massachusetts State Papers 99 

III. THE POWER OF A COURT TO DECLARE A LAW- 
UNCONSTITUTIONAL 

I. The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 125 

II. Introductions to the Sources 128 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study 132 

IV. The Sources i37 

1. The Law of Nations, etc 137 

2. Works of John Adams 139 

3. Reports of Cases argued and decided in the Court 

of Appeals of Virginia 141 

4. American Criminal Trials 143 

5. Martin's Reports 147 

vi 



Contents 

PAGE 

6. Life and Correspondence of James Iredell . . 151 

7. Records of Federal Convention 163 

8. The Federalist 170 

9. The Works of James Wilson 174 

10. Dallas, Reports of Cases . . . in the several courts 

of the United States 176 

11. Harris and Johnson, Reports, Vol. I .... 178 

IV. RELIGIOUS TOLERATION AND FREEDOM IN . 
VIRGINIA, 1689-1786 

I. The Historical Setting of the Problem . . . . 183 

II. Introductions to the Sources 194 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study 196 

(a) Religious Toleration in Virginia, 1689-1776 . 196 

(b) Religious Liberty in Virginia, 1 776-1 786 . . 200 

IV. The Sources 202 

Part A. Religious Toleration 202 

1. The Statutes at Large, from Magna Charter, Nos. 

I, 3 . . 202 

2. The Statutes at Large, being a Collection of all 

the Laws of Virginia 204 

4. Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United 

States of America, Nos. ^-"j 205 

8. The State of Religion among the Protestant Dis- 

senters in Virginia 212 

9. Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, 

Nos. 9, 12, 16, 17 213 

10. Historical Collections relathig to the American 

Colonial Church, Nos. 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 18 . 214 
19. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 

Nos. 19, 20 231 

21. The Writings of James Madison 232 

Part B. Religious Liberty 236 

1. The Life of George Mason ........ 236 

2. The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates 

held at the Capitol, etc.. May, 1776, Nos. 2, 3 237 

4. Sketches of Virginia, etc., Nos. 4, il , . . . 238 
vii 



Contents 

PAGE 

5. Journal of the House of Delegates of Virginia, 

1776, 1777, Nos. 5, 7 239 

6. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson 243 

8. Separation of Church and State in Virginia, 

Nos. 8-10 246 

12. A History of the Rise and Progress of the Bap- 

tists in Virginia 255 

13. The Writings of James Madison 256 

14. The Statutes at Large, being a Collection of all 

the Laws of Virginia 263 

V. RELATION OF EASTERN STATES TO THE DE- 
VELOPMENT OF THE WEST, 1 785-1 832 
L The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 267 
IL Introductions to the Sources 279 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study 282 

(a) The Jay Treaty and the Free Na\dgation of the 

Mississippi River 282 

(b) Relation of Eastern States to the West, 1785- 

1815 285 

(c) Questions on the Problem of the Public Lands, 

1825-1832 288 

IV. The Sources 292 

1. The Writings of James Monroe 292 

2. Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convetition 

of Virginia, Nos. 2-8 299 

9. Register of Debates in Congress, Nos. 9, 10, 13, 

14, 23, 25-28, 30-34, 36-38, 40-43 ... 307 
II. History of tJie Formation of the Constitutioji of 

the United States of America, Nos. 11, 12 . 310 
15. The Records of the Federal Convention of 17S7, 

Nos. 15-20 316 

21. Documents relating to New England Federalism, 

1800-1815 322 

22. Writings of John Quincy Adams 324 

24. American State Papers, Nos. 24, 29 326 

viii 



Contents 



PACE 



35. Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 

United States 345 

39. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 353 

VI. THE SLAVERY PROBLEM 

L The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 369 

IL Introductions to the Sources 372 

III. Questions and Suggestions for Study 374 

IV. The Sources 377 

1. Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania 377 

2. The Works of Thomas Jefferson 379 

3. St. George Tucker: A Dissertation on Slavery 

with a Proposal for the Gradual A bolition of 

it in the State of Virginia 381 

4. Thomas Roderick Dew: A Review of the Debate 

in the Virginia Legislature, 1831-1832 . . 384 

5. The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay . . . 394 

6. The Works of William E. Channing .... 397 

7. The Works of John C. Calhoun 409 

8. A Memoir on Slavery, by William Harper . . 414 

9. Abraham Lincoln^ s Speeches 425 

10. The Congressional Globe, 66th Congress, First 

Session 427 

11. The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan 

Palmer 432 

VII. FORT SUMTER AND THE OUTBREAK OF THE 

CIVIL WAR 

I. The Historical Setting of the Problem .... 441 

II. Introductions to the Sources 444 

HI. Questions and Suggestions for Study 446 

IV. The Sources 451 

1 . The War of the Rebellion: Official Records, Nos. 

I, 4, 9, 14, 15, 16, 17 451 

2. Greeley's American Conflict 451 

ix 



Contents 

PAGE 

3. Curtis' Life of James Buchanan, Nos. 3, 7 . 452 
5. Crawford's Genesis of the Civil War, Nos. 5, 6, 

II, 13, 21, 26, 27, 29 454 

8. Mr. Buchanan' s Administration, Nos, 8, 12, 18, 

19, 20, 23 459 

10. Rhodes' History of the United States, Nos. 10, 28 463 

22. Nicolay and Hay's Abraham Lincoln, Nos. 22, 24 488 

25. Moore's Rebellion Record 491 

30. Abraham Lincoln's Complete Works .... 500 

Index 507 



PREFACE 

CIVE of the seven problems here presented for 
^ study are of very profound significance in 
American history. It would be difficult, if not im- 
possible, to find others of equal importance: the 
development of religious liberty, discussions of the 
Revolutionary period which foreshadow the estab- 
lishment of our Constitution, the historical origin of 
the wide and peculiar authority of our courts, sec- 
tionalism as it showed itself in suspicion and jeal- 
ousy between East and West, slavery and sectional 
views on slavery. All students of American history 
probably would agree that, if we should thoroughly 
understand these things, we should get pretty near 
the heart of American history. In preparing these 
studies we have felt that it is desirable to show, as 
far as space permits, differing points of view and 
conflicting tendencies; but we have not thought it 
necessary or desirable to gather pieces of conflicting 
testimony concerning particular events. The sources 
show, as nothing else can, the emergence of institu- 
tions and forms of thinking or the gradual prepara- 
tion for final decision of some social question; they 
illustrate and demonstrate the play of counter cur- 

xi 



Preface 

rents, and that things of real moment do not just 
happen. As American history is the history of the 
working-out of great problems of human relation- 
ship and of political order, the sources selected for 
intensive study in a book of this kind should help 
the intelligent understanding of those fundamental 
movements. We believe, then, that the careful 
examination of these sources will be of great value, 
not so much to serve for an incidental class exercise, 
as to enable the student to see and understand the 
vital social and political controversies of American 
history. He will see things come to pass as the re- 
sult of human endeavor and that important things 
are products of differences of opinion. 

Two of the problems are chosen partly because 
of their continuing interest, partly because they 
give exceptional opportunity to weigh evidence and 
to ponder probability. Of these, the first has to do 
with the beginnings of actual warfare at Lexington, 
the other with negotiations and conferences preced- 
ing the Civil War. Both, it is expected, will enable 
the student to get a clearer view than is possible 
by the mere study of text-books or of segregated 
sources, of the problems the historian has to face in 
deciding for himself the truth or falsity of an alleged 
occurrence. 

It is hoped that, by the aid of the questions, 
which we have sought to present in considerable 
number, the sources can be used without marked 

xii 



Preface 

difficulty. Possibly such problems as these may 
not be grasped in their fullest meaning; it is hard 
for any of us to grasp with complete comprehension 
all the bearings of an historical controversy. But 
the thought and the application required for suc- 
cessful work on these problems is surely no greater 
than that required in getting the meaning of an 
oration of Cicero or in solving the perplexities of 
advanced school algebra. This certainly may be 
said — the understanding of these problems is worth 
while, if one would know American history. The 
result of study is not a mere abstraction unrelated 
to Hfe. 

Problems II and III were prepared by Mr. Mc- 
Laughlin, Problem VI by Mr. Dodd, Problems IV and 
V by Mr. Jernegan, and Problems I and VII by Mr. 
Scott. 



PROBLEM I 
I.— The Battle of Lexington 



SOURCE PROBLEMS 
IN UNITED STATES HISTORY 

The Battle of Lexington 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM . 

THE War for American Independence began on April 
19, 1775, with a clash between British troops and a 
company of Massachusetts militia at Lexington. This 
fact makes the events of that day forever memorable, 
and lends them an importance that overshadows the 
material results of the affair. Of course in any broad view 
of history a knowledge of the details of this engagement 
is insignificant as compared with an understanding of 
the forces which for years had been leading up to some 
sort of armed collision between the British Government 
and the dissatisfied element in the Colonies (see Study II). 
It is far more important to know why both sides were 
preparing to use force than it is to determine the exact 
incidents by which war was precipitated. Still further, 
with regard to the events at Lexington, there is a sense 
in which what actually occurred is less important than 
what both sides thought and said had happened. As a 
matter of fact, two radically different versions of the 
2 3 



Source Problems in United States History 

encounter became current, both based on the testimony 
of eye-witnesses. On the crucial question as to who fired 
the first shot the testimony was flatly contradictory, each 
side laying the blame on the other. At the time, because 
of its possible effect on public opinion, this was a point 
of decided importance. Each side believed that the other 
had been the aggressor, and felt outraged accordingly. 

In later years, an attem]3t was made to belittle the 
whole affair at Lexington, in order to claim for Concord 
the honor of having made the first organized armed re- 
sistance to British tyranny. 

For the present-day student, all such questions are of 
minor importance. The study of the parallel accounts, 
however, may be made a very profitable exercise in his- 
torical criticism, and it is for this reason that they are 
included in the present volimie. The material has been 
selected primarily in order to present all the available 
evidence as to which side fired the first shot; but a gen- 
eral account of the whole day's events can be reconstructed 
from the extracts. The problems raised are the same in 
kind as those which confront the writer of history at 
every turn, and the processes involved in comparing, 
criticizing, and reconciling these statements are essen- 
tially those which must be follow^ed in the search for all 
historical truth. 

Writers on historical criticism have drawn up elabo- 
rate rules for determining the value of evidence. In 
general such rules simply formulate principles of common 
sense that we apply more or less unconsciously in daily 
life. A few of them, however, might be recalled. As a 
preliminary, the student should always try to make 
allowance for his own sympathies and inclinations. It is 
hard at times not to believe that those witnesses are most 
reliable whose testimony best fits in with our own be- 
Hefs. In the present case, we should not start with the 

4 



The Battle of Lexington 

idea that the British were brutal a^^^^ressors, and there- 
fore presumably liars. 

In estimating evidence, we generally assume that the 
certainty of our knowledge of an event increases with the 
number of actual witnesses who agree in their descrip- 
tions of that event; and where there is a conflict of 
testimony we often presume that statements made by 
the larger nimiber of witnesses arc more likely to be 
true. Counting witnesses on either side, however, is 
usually of less importance than weighing them, deter- 
mining, that is, the relative value of each one's testi- 
mony. In this connection several critical questions sug- 
gest themselves at once. 

We naturally wish to know, (i) What opportunity did 
each witness have for learning the truth ? Was he a par- 
ticipant in the events described? Was he a spectator? 
Or did he get his information from eye-witnesses, or only 
from hearsay? We also try to determine, (2) What pos- 
sible motives existed for downright falsehood, or for 
twisting or coloring the truth, or for suppressing part 
of it, or for misinterpreting facts? How probable is it 
that each particiilar witness would be affected by any 
of these motives? It is also safe to ask, (3) What are 
the possibilities for honest mistakes or for self-deception 
on the part of any witness? How soon after the event 
was the record made? 

In working out the source problem presented by the 
Lexington material, all of these questions are pertinent 
and in many cases they can be satisfactorily answered. 
It is unwise, however, to press evidence too far. The 
student is not bound to come to positive conclusions on all 
points. Sometimes one should simply say, "The weight of 
evidence seems to favor such and such a conclusion. ' ' Some- 
times one should admit that the evidence is so confused, or 
so nicely balanced, that no positive conclusions are safe. 

5 



Source Problems in United States History 

The questions are offered as suggestions to direct the 
attention of the student to various points involved in the 
material. Independent thinking on these questions might 
profitably be followed by discussions in class. The stu- 
dent should conclude his work by writing a narrative of 
the events of April 18-19, with particular reference to 
the Lexington affair. Foot-notes and references to sources 
should be added. 



II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

I . American Archives: consisting of a Collection of authentick 
records, state papers, debates, and letters and other notices of 
public affairs, the whole forming a documentary history of 
the origin and progress of the North American Colonies; of 
the causes and accomplishment of the American Revolution; 
and of the Constitution of government for the United States, 
to the final ratification thereof. In six series. American 
Archives: Fourth Series containing a documentary history of 
the English Colonies in North America, from the King's 
Message to Parliament, of March y, 1774, to the Declaration 
of Independence by the JJnited States. Peter Force, editor. 
Washington, 1837. (Quoted as Force's Archives.) 

In Series IV, Vol. II, of Force's Archives are reprinted 
nearly all of the more important contemporary accounts 
of Lexington. From the material in this volume the fol- 
lowing extracts are taken : (figures refer to columns, which 
are numbered separately). 

(i) 363. Letter of Massachusetts Committee of Safety, 
sent by express riders to alarm the country. This and the 
following extract show the form in which the news of 
Lexington reached the other Colonies. The first report 
reached New York on April 23d, and Charleston, South 
Carolina, on May 8th. (Source i.) 

6 



The Battle of Lexington 

(2) 370. "The Committee of Safety of Massachusetts 
to the Governor of Connecticut." Account of Lexington 
and Concord, written April 20th, and asking for miHtary 
assistance. (Source 2.) 

(3) 360. "Extract of a Letter from Boston to a Gentle- 
man in New York, dated April 20, 1775." Force does not 
give his reference. Probably the letter was printed in some 
contemporary newspaper. It shows the form in which the 
first rumors of the fight reached Boston. (Source 3.) 

(4) 391. Account dated Salem, April 25, 1775. From 
the Salem Gazette. (Source 9.) 

(5) 487-501. The Massachusetts Provincial Congress to 
the Inhabitants of Great Britain, April 26th. Realizing 
the gravity of the events of April 19th, the Massachusetts 
leaders at once collected testimony under oath, chiefly 
from those present at Lexington. Their interpretation of 
this evidence, with the depositions appended, was hurried 
off to Franklin in England by a fast ship. It arrived 
eleven days before Gage's official account, which had been 
sent earlier. This priority was of some advantage in im- 
pressing the colonial version on the British public. (Sources 
10, 11.) 

(6) 625. " An Account of the Commencement of Hostili- 
ties between Great Britain and America, in the Province 
of the Massachusetts-Bay. By the Reverend Mr. William 
Gordon of Roxbury, in a Letter to a Gentleman in Eng- 
land, dated May 17, 1775." This letter was obviously 
intended for the public, and was accordingly printed in 
two Massachusetts Almanacs for 1776. 

Gordon was a dissenting English minister, who had been 
settled for some years in Massachusetts. After the war 
he returned to England and wrote a History of the Revolu- 
tion, which for a long time enjoyed a considerable reputa- 
tion. His sympathies were distinctly with the Colonists. 
(Source 12.) 

7 



Source Problems in United States History 

(7) 673. '*A Narrative of the Excursion and Ravages 
of the King's Troops, under the command of General 
Gage, on the nineteenth of April, 1775; together with the 
Depositions taken by order of Congress to support the 
truth of it. Published by authority." This is the ac- 
count drawn up by the Massachusetts Congress and for- 
warded to the Continental Congress. It coiTcsponds 
closely with the account sent to England. The same 
depositions are appended, with three new ones added to 
refute the "scalping" stories, and to reinforce the charges 
of British atrocities. (Sources 13, 14.) 

2. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1877. "Diary of a British 
Officer in Boston." The writer of this diary cannot be 
identified with certainty, but there is no doubt that it is 
authentic. (Source 8.) 

3. Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, F. B. .Dexter, editor. 
(New York, 1901.) 

I, 604-5. Under date of August 21, 1775, Stiles gives 
Major Pitcaim's version of the beginning of the affair at 
Lexington. Stiles was a prominent clergyman, then a 
pastor in Newport. (Source 6.) 

4. Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings (1876, p. 
359, note). 

Report of Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, commanding the 
British expedition, made to Governor Gage. The report of 
Lord Percy, in command of the relieving column, appears 
on p. 349. It is not included in this study. (Source 4.) 

5. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections. 
Second Series, Vol. IV, p. 204. Account written by 

Ensign D'Bemicre, a British Officer in the Tenth Regiment. 
The manuscript was found after the British had evacuated 
Boston, and was printed in Boston in 1779. (Source 7.) 

6. Memorial History of Boston, 1630-1880, Justin Winsor, 
editor. Four vols. (Boston, 18 80-1 8 81.) 

Vol. Ill, p. 73. "A Circumstantial Account Of an 

8 



The Battle of Lexington 

Attack that happened on the 19th of April 1775, on his 
Majesty's Troops, By a Number of the People of the 
Province of Massachusetts-Bay." This is a facsimile of 
the broadside giving the official British version of the 
affair, printed presumably by order of Gage, and cir- 
culated within a few days of April 19th. With slight 
verbal changes this is also reprinted in Force's Archives, IV, 
2, 435. (Source 5.) 

7. History of the Battle of Lexington, by Elias Phinney. 
(Boston, 1825.) 

(i) Extract from Introduction, showing the intention 
of refuting the claims that the first organized resistance 
was made not at Lexington but Concord. (2) Appendix, 
giving the depositions of the survivors of the battle, taken 
in 1825, emphasizing the shots fired by the militia after the 
British had fired. (Sources 15, 16.) 

8. Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker, by John 
Weiss. (New York, 1864.) 

Vol. II, p. 12. Letter from Parker to George Ban- 
croft, September 10, 1858. Rev. Theodore Parker was a 
grandson of Captain Parker, who commanded the militia 
at Lexington. This letter gives the version of the fight 
as it was handed down in the Parker family. Another 
letter of February 16, 1858, to J. F. Loring, printed in the 
Historical Magazine, ist Series, 4:202, gives a few more 
details. (Source 17.) 

in. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

(The student in all cases should be prepared to give the exact 
references to sources justifying his answers.) 

1. What connected accounts on each side seem to you of most 

importance? Why? 

2. What was the fundamental point on which the accounts 

differed? Why was it important? 

9 



Source Problems in United States History 

3. Why do the contemporary American accounts emphasize 

the dispersing of the Lexington company? Were they 
anxious to emphasize their own resistance? 

4. What statements in extracts i, 2, 3 are not confirmed by 

the rest of the evidence? 

5. What is the difference in emphasis between the American 

depositions of 1775 and 1825? Why is this? How does 
it affect their value? In what fundamental points do 
the two sets agree? Are there statements which con- 
tradict each other? If so, which are we to prefer? 

6. What commands did Captain Parker give to his company? 

At what stage (with reference to the action of the 
British) was each command given? 

7. Did Captain Parker order his men to stand their ground 

and not to fire unless fired upon? If so, why do you 
suppose that this was not mentioned in 1775? 

8. Did he add "But if they mean to have a war, let it begin 

here"? If so, why is it not mentioned in the deposi- 
tions of 1775? in those of 1825? If not, how may 
the insertion of these words into the Lexington story 
be accounted for? 

9. Had the militia all assembled when the firing began? Had 

some begun to disperse? What evidence is there that 
the mihtia fired at all? About how many shots were 
fired by them and with what effect? 

10. Should you say that the action of the Lexington company 

marked the beginning of armed and organized resist- 
ance to Britain? Explain. 

1 1 . How do you account for the similarities of phrasing of parts 

of the American depositions? How does this affect 
their value? 

12. Who was in immediate command of the British at Lexing- 

ton? What, in substance, did he say to the militia? 
Did he receive any reply? What orders did he give 
his men? Did he, or any other officer, order the troops 
• to fire? If so, when? 

13. Was Lieutenant-Colonel Smith present at the Lexington 

affair? If so, when did he arrive? 
10 



The Battle of Lexington 

14. What was Major Pitcairn's general reputation? On seeing 

the mihtia, what were his intentions? Did he sincerely 
believe that the Americans had fired first? 

15. What do you think of the suggestion that the British im- 

pression that the Americans fired first was based upon 
an alarm gun being fired, or flashing in the pan? 

16. What allowances should be made for the testimony of the 

captured British? 

17. What do you think is the value of Gordon's account? To 

which of his conclusions would you object? Why? 

18. On what information is the official British account based? 

(5). Compare it with Smith's report. Where did the 
additional items probably come from? 

19. How authentic does the Salem Gazette account appear? (9). 

20. Trace the origin of the story that the Americans killed and 

scalped the wounded. In what respect is the deposi- 
tion of Brown and Davis (14c) misleading? 

21. What evidence is there that the British troops destroyed 

and looted? 

22. How far are the statements regarding outrageous treatment 

of women and murder of unoffending old men (10, 11, 
13, 14) borne out? How far would you regard the 
American charges as exaggerated? 

23. Were the Americans technically ''rebels"? What is sup- 

posed to be the fate of houses from which ununiformed 
"rebels" fire at troops? 

24. Put yourself in the position of a British oflficial considering 

the expedition to Concord, and state the considerations 
(a) of legal right and (b) of expediency in favor of such 
an expedition. (Draw on material from Study H.) 

25. Draw up a corresponding summary from the American 

point of view as to armed resistance to the expedition. 
(See Study H.) 

26. In drawing conclusions from the testimony as to the Lexing- 

ton affair, what allowance, if any, do you think should 
be made for: (a) darkness; (b) distance of witnesses 
from the center of activities, or inability to get an un- 
obstructed view; (c) excitement of witnesses at the 
II 



Source Problems in United States History 

time; (d) confusion caused by rushing up of militia and 
spectators, advancing and deploying of troops, dispers- 
ing of militia and spectators; (e) desire to prove the 
other side at fault; (/) unconscious changing of details 
in talking the matter over afterward; (g) suggestion of 
details by hearing the testimony of others, or by having 
a form of deposition offered for signature. 

27. Write a connected account of the events of April 18-19, 

with particular reference to the events at Lexington. 
Give references to the sources for every statement of 
fact. Give briefly your reasons for your conclusions 
on debatable points. (For the form of foot-notes, fol- 
low some standard history, as Channing, History of the 
United States, or one of the American Nation series.) 

28. After you have finished your own study, examine the ac- 

counts of Lexington in several of the histories at hand , 
including books by English authors. Try to determine 
the sources used by each. Criticize the accounts 
which seem inaccurate or biased. 



IV. The Sources 

I. Force's Archives, Series IV, Vol. II, col. 363. 
[The form in which news of Lexington first 
reached the other Colonies.] 

Watertown, Wednesday morning, 
5 Near ten o'clock, April ig, 1775, 

To ALL Friends of AMERICAN Liberty let it 
BE known: 
That this morning before break of day, a Brigade, 
consisting of about one thousand or twelve hundred 

10 men, landed at Phipps's farm at Cambridge, and 
marched to Lexington, where they found a Company 
of our Colony Militia in anns, upon whom they 

. fired without any provocation, and killed six men 
and wounded four others. By an express from 

IS Boston we find another Brigade are upon their march 
from Boston, supposed to be about one thousand. 
The bearer, Israel Bess el, is charged to alarm the 
Country quite to Connecticut, and all persons are 
desired to furnish him with fresh horses as they 

20 may be needed. I have spoken with several who 
have seen the dead and wounded. Pray let the 
Delegates from this Colony to Connecticut see this; 

13 



Source Problems in United States History 

they know Colonel Foster, of Brookfield, one of our 
Delegates. 

T. Palmer 
One of the Committee for Safety. 

s 2. Col. 370. [Massachusetts Committee of Safety 
to the Governor of Connecticut.]^ 

Cambridge, April 20, 1775. 

On Wednesday, the 19th instant, early in the 

morning, a detachment of General Gage's Army 

10 marched into the Country to Lexington, about 

thirteen miles from Boston, where they met with a 

small party of Minute-men, exercising, who had no 

intention of doing any injury to the Regulars. But 

they fired upon our men without any provocation, 

15 killed eight of them the first onset, then marched 

forward to Concord, where they destroyed the 

Magazines and Stores for a considerable time. . . . 

As the Troops have now commenced hostilities, we 

think it our duty to exert our utmost strength to 

20 save our Country from absolute slavery. . . . 

3. Col. 359-60. [This ''Extract of a Letter to a 
Gentleman near Philadelphia, Dated Bos- 
ton, April 20, 1775," was presumably taken 
by Force from a contemporary newspaper.] 
25 ... The first advice we had was about eight o'clock 
in the morning, when it was reported that the 
Troops had fired upon and killed five men in Lexing- 

iln the following selections the original italics for proper nouns 
are omitted. 

14 



The Battle of Lexington 

ton. . . . About twelve o'clock it was given out by 
the General's Aid-de-Camp that no person was killed 
and that a single gun had not been fired, which re- 
port was variously believed; but, between one and 
5 two o'clock, certain accounts came that eight were 
killed outright, and fourteen wounded of the in- 
habitants of Lexington. Those people, it seems, to 
the number of about forty, were drawn out early 
in the morning near the Meeting-House to exercise; 

10 upon which the party of Light-Infantry and Grena- 
diers, to the number of about eight hundred, came 
up to them and ordered them to disperse. The 
commander replied that they were innocently amus- 
ing themselves with exercise, that they had not 

IS any ammunition with them, and therefore should 
not molest or disturb them. This answer not satis- 
fying, the Troops fired upon them, and killed three 
or four; the others took to their heels, and the 
Troops continued to fire. A few took refuge in the 

20 Meeting-House, when the soldiers shoved up the 
windows, pointed their guns in, and killed three 
there. This is the best account I can learn of the 
beginning of the fatal day, and you must naturally 
suppose that suth a piece of cruelty would arouse 

25 the Country. . . . [On the retreat] it is conjectured 
that one half of the soldiers at least are killed. 
4- Massachusetts Historical Society, Proceedings, 
1876, 350, note. [Report of Lieutenant-Colonel 
Smith to Governor Gage.] 
15 



Source Problems in United States History 

Boston, April 22, 1775- 
Sir, — In obedience to your Excellency's com- 
mands, I marched on the evening of the i8th inst. 
with the corps of grenadiers and light infantry for 

5 Concord, to execute your Excellency's orders with 
respect to destroying all ammunition, artillery, 
tents, &c., collected there, which was effected, hav- 
ing knocked off the trunnions of three pieces of iron 
ordnance, some new gun-carriages, a great number 

10 of carriage-wheels burnt, a considerable quantity of 
flour, some gun-powder and musquet-balls, with 
other small articles thrown into the river. Not- 
withstanding we marched with the utmost expedition 
and secrecy, we found the country had intelligence or 

IS strong suspicion of our coming, and fired many sig- 
nal guns, and rung the alarm bells repeatedly; and 
were informed, when at Concord, that some cannon 
had been taken out of the town that day, that 
others, with some stores, had been carried three 

20 days before, which prevented our having an oppor- 
tunity of destroying so much as might have been 
expected at our first setting off. 

I think it proper to observe, that when I had got 
some miles on the march from Boston, I detached 

25 six light infantry companies to march with all ex- 
pedition to seize the two bridges on different roads 
beyond Concord. On these companies' arrival at 
Lexington, I understand, from the report of Major 
Pitcairn, who was with them, and from many officers, 

16 



The Battle of Lexington 

that they found on a green close to the road a body of 
the country people drawn up in military order, with 
arms and accoutrements, and, as appeared after, 
loaded; and that they had posted some men in a 
5 dwelling and Meeting-house. Our troops advanced 
towards them, without any intention of injuring 
them, further than to inquire the reason of their 
being thus assembled, and, if not satisfactory, to 
have secured their arms ; but they in confusion went 

10 off, principally to the left, only one of them fired 
before he went off, and three or four more jumped 
over a wall and fired from behind it among the sol- 
diers; on which the troops returned it, and killed 
several of them. They likewise fired on the soldiers 

15 from the Meeting and dwelling-house. We had one 
man wounded, and Major Pitcaim's horse shot in 
two places. Rather earlier than this, on the road, a 
countryman from behind a wall had snapped his piece 
at Lieutenants Adair and Sutherland, but it flashed 

20 and did not go off. After this we saw some in the 
woods, but marched on to Concord without any- 
thing further happening. While at Concord we saw 
vast numbers assembling in many parts; at one of 
the bridges they marched down, with a very con- 

25 siderable body, on the light infantry posted there. 
On their coming pretty near, one of our men fired 
on them, which they returned; on which an action 
ensued, and some few were killed and wounded. In 
this affair, it appears that, after the bridge was 

17 



Source Problems in United States History 

quitted, they scalped and otherwise ill-treated one 
or two of the men who were either killed or severely 
wounded, being seen by a party that marched by 
soon after. At Concord we found very few in- 

s habitants in the town; those we met with both 
Major Pitcaini and myself took all possible pains 
to convince that we meant them no injury, and that 
if they opened their doors when required to search 
for military stores, not the slightest mischief would 

10 be done. We had opportunities of convincing them 
of our good intentions, but they were sulky; and 
one of them even struck Major Pit cairn. On our 
leaving Concord to return to Boston, they began 
to fire on us from behind the walls, ditches, trees, 

IS Sec, which, as we marched, increased to a very great 
degree, and continued without the intermission of 
five minutes altogether, for, I believe, upwards of 
eighteen miles; so that I can't think but it must 
have been a preconcerted scheme in them, to attack 

20 the King's troops the first favourable opportunity 
that offered, otherwise, I think they could not, in 
so short a time from our marching out, have 
raised such a numerous body, and for so great a 
space of ground. Notwithstanding the enemy's 

25 numbers, they did not make one gallant attempt 
during so long an action, though our men were so 
very much fatigued, but kept under cover. 
I have the honour, &c., 
F. Smith, Lieutenant-Colonel loth Foot, 
i8 



The Battle of Lexington 

5. Memorial History of Boston, Justin Winsor, 
editor, III, 73. 
A Circumstantial Account of an Attack that hap- 
pened on the 19th of A])ril, 1775, on his Majesty's 
5 Troops, By a Number of the People of the Province 
of Massachusetts-Bay. 

On Tuesday the i8th of April, about half past 10 
at Night, Lieutenant Colonel Smith of the loth 
Regiment, embarked from the Common at Boston, 

10 with the Grenadiers and Light Infantry of the 
Troops there, and landed on the opx)osite Side, from 
whence he began his March towards Concord, where 
he was ordered to destroy a Magazine of Military 
Stores, deposited there for the Use of an Army to 

15 be assembled, in Order to act against his Majesty, 
and his Government. The Colonel called his Officers 
together, and gave Orders, that the Trooj^s should 
not fire, unless fired upon, and after marching a few 
Miles, detached six Companies of Light Infantry, 

20 under the Command of Major Pitcairn, to take 
Possession of two Bridges on the other Side of Con- 
cord: Soon after they heard many Signal Guns, 
and the ringing of Alarm Bells repeatedly, which 
convinced them that the Country was rising to op- 

25 pose them, and that it was a preconcerted Scheme 
to oppose the King's Troox)s, whenever there should 
be a favorable Opportunity for it. About 3 o' Clock 
the next Morning, the Troops being advanced within 
two Miles of Lexington, Intelligence was received 
3 19 



Source Problems in United States History 

that about Five Hundred Men in Arms, were assem- 
bled, and determined to oppose the King's Troops; 
[foot-note, in original] : (At this Time the advanced 
Light Companies loaded, but the Grenadiers were 

5 not loaded when they received the first fire.) and on 
Major Pitcairn's gallopping up to the Head of the 
advanced Companies, two Officers informed him 
that a Man advanced from those that were assem- 
bled had presented his Musquit and attempted to 

10 shoot them, but the Piece fiashed in the Pan. On 
this the Major gave directions to the Troops to 
move forward, but on no Account to fire, nor even 
to attempt it without Orders. When they arrived 
at the End of the Village, they observed about 200 

IS armed Men, drawn up on a Green, and when the 
Troops came within a Hundred Yards of them, they 
began to file off towards some Stone Walls, on their 
right Flank. The Light Infantry observing this, 
ran after them: the Major instantly called to the 

20 Soldiers not to fire, but to surround and disarm 
them, some of them who had jumped over a Wall, 
then fired four or five Shot at the Troops, wounded 
a man of the loth Regiment, and the Major's 
Horse in two Places, and at the same Time 

25 several Shots were fired from a Meeting House 
on the Left. [Note, in original] : (Notwithstanding 
the Fire from the Meeting House Colonel Smith and 
Major Pit cairn with the Greatest Difficulty kept the 
Soldiers from forcing into the Meeting House and 

2Q 



The Battle of Lexington 

putting all those in it to Death.) [After describ- 
ing the fight at Concord the account proceeds]: 
When Captain Parsons returned with the three 
Companies over the Bridge, they observed three 
s Soldiers on the Ground one of them scalped, his 
Head much mangled, and his Ears cut off, tho not 
quite dead; a Sight which struck the Soldiers with 
Horror. [The retreat is then described. The ac- 
count closes]: The Troops had about Fifty killed, 

10 and many more wounded. Reports are various 
about the Loss sustained by the Country People, 
some make it very considerable, others not so 
much. 

Thus the unfortunate Affair has happened through 

15 the Rashness and Imprudence of a few People, who 
began Firing on the Troops at Lexington. 
6. The Literary Diary of Ezra Stiles, F. B. Dexter, 
editor, I, 604-5. 
Major Pitcairn who was a good Man in a bad 

20 Cause, insisted upon it to the day of his Death, ^ that 
the Colonists fired first: & that he commanded not 
to fire & endeavored to stay & stop the firing after it 
began: But then he told this with such Circum- 
stances as convince me that he was deceived tho' 

25 on the spot. He does not say that he saw the Colonists 
fire first. Had he said it, I would have believed him, 
being a Man of Integrity & Honor. He expressly 
says he did not see who fired first; and yet believed the 

1 He was killed at Bunker Hill. 
21 



Source Problems in United States History 

Peasants began. His acc° is this — that riding up 
to them he ordered them to disperse ; which they not 
doing instantly, he turned about to order his Troops 
so to draw out as to surround and disarm them. As 

s he turned he saw a Gun in a Peasants hand from be- 
hind a Wall, flash in the pan without going off: and 
instantly or very soon 2 or 3 Guns went off by which 
he found his Horse wounded & also a man near him 
wounded. These Guns he did not see, but believ^ they 

10 could not come from his own p[eo]ple, doubted not 
so asserted that they came from our p[eo]ple ; & that 
thus they began the Attack. The Impetuosity of 
the Kings Troops were [sic] such that a promiscu- 
ous, uncommanded but general Fire took place, 

IS which Pitcairn could not prevent; tho' he struck 
his staff or Sword downwards with all Earnestness as 
the signal to forbear or cease firing.^ This Acc° 
Major Pitcairn himself gave M'" Brown of Provi- 
dence . . . ; and Gov. Sessions told it to me. 

20 7. Massachusetts Historical Society, Collections, Series 

II, Vol. IV, 216. [Account by a British 

officer, Ensign D'Bemicre, of the loth Foot.] 

. . . The troops received no interruption in their 

march until they arrived at Lexington, a town eleven 

25 miles from Boston, where there were about 150 
rebels drawn out in divisions, with intervals as wide 
as the front of the divisions; the light-infantry who 
marched in front halted, and Major Pitcairn came 

^Compare Fessenden's account in 11 (/) below. 
22 



The Battle of Lexington 

up immediately and cried out to the rebels to throw 

down their arms and disperse, which they did not 

do; he called out a second time, but to no purpose; 

upon which he ordered our light-infantry to advance 

5 and disarm them, which they were doing, when one 

of the rebels fired a shot, our soldiers returned the 

fire and killed about fourteen of them; there was 

only one of the loth light-infantry received a shot 

through his leg; some of them got into the church 

10 and fired from it, but were soon drove out. We 

then continued our march for Concord. . . . 

8. Atlantic Monthly, April, 1877, p. 398. [From the 

diary of a British officer, under date April 

i9> I775-] 

IS ... At 2 o'clock we began our March by wading 
through a very long ford up to our Middles: after 
going a few miles we took 3 or 4 people who were 
going off to give intelligence; about 5 miles on this 
side of a Town called Lexington, which lay in our 

20 road, we heard there were some hundreds of People 
collected together intending to oppose us and stop 
our going on; at 5 o'clock we arrived there and saw 
a number of People, I believe between 2 and 300, 
formed in a Common in the middle of the Town; 

25 we still continued advancing, keeping prepared 
against an attack tho' without intending to attack 
them; but on our coming near them they fired one 
or two shots, upon which our Men without any 
orders rushed in upon them, fired and put 'em to 

23 



Source Problems in United States History- 
flight; several of them were killed, we cou'd not tell 
how many, because they were got behind Walls 
and into the Woods; We had a man of the loth light 
Infantry wounded, nobody else hurt. We then 
s formed on the Common, but with some difficulty, 
the Men were so wild they cou'd hear no orders. . . . 
[After the Concord fight, the retreat began. After 
Percy's relieving force had come] we were now obliged 
to force almost every house in the road, for the 
10 Rebels had taken possession of them and galled us 
exceedingly; but they suffered for their temerity, 
for all that were found in the houses were put to 
death. . . . 

p. 544 [under date of April 25]. 
IS Our Soldiers the other day, tho' they shew'd no 
want of courage, yet were so wild and irregular, that 
there was no keeping 'em in any order; by their 
eagerness and inattention they kill'd many of our 
own People, and the plundering was shamefull ; many 
20 hardly thought of anything else; what was worse, 
they were encouraged by some Officers. . . . 
9. Force's Archives, Series IV, Vol. II, col. 391. 
[Account in the Salem Gazette, April 25, 1775.] 
Last Wednesday the 19th of April, the Troops of 
^5 His Britannick Majesty commenced hostilities upon 
the people of this Province, attended with circum- 
stances of cruelty, no less brutal than what our 
venerable ancestors received from the vilest Savages 
of the wilderness. The particulars relative to this 

24 



The Battle of Lexington 

interesting event, by which we are involved in all 
the horrours of a civil war, we have endeavoured 
to collect as well as the present confused state of 
affairs will admit. . . . [Describes the start of the 

5 British.] 

At Lexington, six miles below Concord, a com- 
pany of Militia, of about one hundred men, mustered 
near the Meeting-House ; the Troops came in sight 
of them just before sunrise; and running within a 

10 few rods of them, the Commanding Officer accosted 
the Militia in words to this effect: * ' Disjjerse, you 
rebels — damn you, thrown down your arms and dis- 
perse;" upon which the Troops huzzaed, and im- 
mediately one or two officers discharged their pistols, 

IS which were instantaneously followed by the firing of 
four or five of the soldiers, and then there seemed 
to be a general discharge from the whole body: 
eight of our men were killed and nine wounded. . . . 
[On the retreat from Concord] they pillaged almost 

20 every house they passed by, breaking and destroy- 
ing doors, windows, glasses, &c., and carrying off 
clothing and other valuable effects. It appeared 
to be their design to burn and destroy all before them ; 
and nothing but our vigorous pursuit prevented 

25 their infernal purposes from being put in execution. 
But the savage barbarity exercised upon the bodies 
of our unfortunate brethren who fell, is almost in- 
credible: not contented with shooting down the 
unarmed, aged, and infirm, they disregarded the 

25 



Source Problems in United States History 

cries of the wounded, killing them without mercy, 
and mangling their bodies in the most shocking 
manner. 

We have the pleasure to say, that, notwithstand- 
s ing the highest provocations given by the enemy, 
not one instance of cruelty, that we have heard of, 
was committed by our victorious Militia; but, listen- 
ing to the merciful dictates of the Christian religion, 
they "breathed higher sentiments of humanity." . . . 
lo lo. Col. 487. [Account drawn up by the Provincial 
Congress, Watertown, April 26th, based on 
the depositions appended.] 

To THE Inhabitants of Great Britain: 

Friends and Fellow-Subjects: Hostilities are 

IS at length commenced in this Colony by the Troops 
under command of General Gage; and it being of 
the greatest importance that an early, true, and 
authentick account of this inhuman proceeding 
should be known to you, the Congress of this Colony 

20 have transmitted the same, and from want of a 
session of the honourable Continental Congress, think 
it proper to address you on the alarming occasion. 

By the clearest depositions relative to this trans- 
action, it will appear that on the night preceding 

25 the nineteenth of April instant, a body of the King's 
Troops, under command of Colonel Smith, were 
secretly landed at Cambridge, with an apparent 
design to take or destroy the miUtary and other 

26 



The Battle of Lexington 

stores provided for the defence of this Colony, and 
deposited at Concord; that some inhabitants of the 
Colony, on the night aforesaid, whilst travelling 
peaceably on the road between Morton and Con- 
5 cord, were seized and greatly abused by several 
armed men, who appeared to be officers of General 
Gage's Army; that the Town of Lexington by 
these means was alarmed, and a company of the 
inhabitants mustered on the occasion; that the 
10 Regular Troops, on their way to Concord, marched 
into the said Town of Lexington, and the 
said Company, on their approach, began to dis- 
perse; that notwithstanding this, the Regulars 
rushed on with great violence, and first began hos- 
15 tilities by firing on said Lexington Company, where- 
by they killed eight and wounded several others; 
that the Regulars continued their fire until those of 
said Company, who were neither killed nor wounded, 
had made their escape; that Colonel Smith, with 
20 the detachment, then marched to Concord, where 
a number of Provincials were again fired on by the 
Troops, two of them killed, and several wounded, 
before the Provincials fired on them; and that these 
hostile measures of the Troops produced an engage- 
as ment that lasted through the day, in which many 
of the Provincials, and more of the regular Troops, 
were killed and wounded. 

To give a particular account of the ravages of the 
troops as they retreated from Concord to Charles- 

27 



Source Problems in United States History 

town, would be very difficult, if not impracticable; 
let it suffice to say, that a great number of the 
houses on the road were plundered and rendered 
unfit for use; several were burnt; women in child- 

5 bed were driven by the soldiery naked into the 
streets; old men, peaceably in their houses, were 
shot dead; and such scenes exhibited as would dis- 
grace the annals of the most uncivilized Nation. . . . 
II. [Depositions, taken under oath, added to the 

10 account by the Provincial' Congress.] 

(a) Col. 489. [Testimony of Elijah Sanderson, 
April 25, 1775.] 

... I was in Lexington Common the morning of 
the nineteenth of April aforesaid, having been dis- 

is missed by the officers above-mentioned, and saw a 
large body of Regular Troops advancing towards 
Lexington Company, many of whom were then dis- 
persing. I heard one of the Regulars, whom I took 
to be an officer, say, ''damn them, we will have 

20 them;" and immediately the Regulars shouted 
aloud, run, and fired on the Lexington Company, 
which did not fire a gun before the Regulars dis- 
charged on them. Eight of the Lexington Company 
were killed while they were dispersing, and at con- 

25 siderable distance from each other, and many 
wounded; and although a spectator, I narrowly 
escaped with my life. 

(b) Col. 489. [Testimony of Thomas Price Wil- 
lard, April 23d.] 

28 



The Battle of Lexington 

. . . Being in the house of Daniel Harrington, of 
said Lexington, on the nineteenth instant, in the 
morning, about half an hour before sunrise, [I] looked 
out of the window of said house and saw (as I sup- 
s pose) about four hundred of Regulars, in one body, 
coming up the road, and marched toward the north 
part of the common, back of the meeting-house of 
said Lexington; and as soon as said Regulars were 
against the east end of the meeting-house, the com- 

10 manding officers said something, what I know not; 
but upon that the Regulars ran till they came within 
about eight or nine rods of about a hundred of the 
Militia of Lexington, who were collected on said 
commpn, at which time the Militia of Lexington dis- 

is persed; then the officers made a huzza, and the 
private soldiers succeeded them. Directly after 
this an officer rode before the Regulars to the other 
side of the body, and hallooed after the Militia of 
said Lexington, and said, ''Lay down your arms, 

20 damn you; why don't you lay down your arms?" 
and that there was not a gun fired till the Militia 
of Lexington were dispersed. 

(<:) Col. 490. [Simon Winship deposes, April 
25th, that he was stopped by the troops and forced 

25 to march toward Lexington with them.] 

Said Winship further testifies that he marched 
with said Troops until he came within about half 
a quarter of a mile of said meeting-house, where an 
officer commanded the Troops to halt, and then to 

29 



Source Problems in United States History 

prime and load. This being done, the said Troops 
marched on till they came within a few rods of Cap- 
tain Parker's Company, who were partly collected 
on the place of parade, when said Winship ob- 

s served an officer at the head of said Troops flourish- 
ing his sword, and with a loud voice giving the word 
fire; which was instantly followed by a discharge of 
arms from said Regular Troops. And said Winship 
is positive, and in the most solemn manner declares, 

10 that there was no discharge of arms on either side 
till the word fire was given by said officer as above. 
((/) Col. 491. [Deposition of Captain Parker, 
April 25th.] 

I, John Parker, of lawful age, and commander of 

IS the Militia in Lexington, do testify and declare, that 
on the nineteenth instant, in the morning, about 
one of the clock, being informed that there were a 
number of Regular Officers riding up and down the 
road, stopping and insulting people as they passed 

20 the road, and also was informed that a number of 
Regular Troops were on their march from Boston, 
in order to take the Province Stores at Concord, 
ordered our Militia to meet on the Common in said 
Lexington, to consult what to do, and concluded 

2s not to be discovered, nor meddle or make with said 
Regular Troops (if they should approach) unless they 
should insult us; and upon their sudden approach, 
I immediately ordered our Militia to disperse and 
not to fire. Immediately said Troops made their 

30 



The Battle of Lexington 

appearance, and rushed furiously, fired upon and 
killed eight of our party, without receiving any prov- 
ocation therefor from us. 

(e) Col. 491, [John Robbins testifies, April 
s 24th]: 

On the nineteenth instant, the Company under 
the command of Captain John Parker being drawn 
up (sometime before sunrise) on the green or com- 
mon, and I being in the front rank, there suddenly 

10 appeared a number of the King's Troops, about a 
thousand, as I thought, at the distance of about 
sixty or seventy yards from us, huzzaing and on a 
quick pace towards us, with three officers in their 
front on horseback, and on full gallop towards us; 

IS the foremost of which cried, "Throw down your 
arms, ye villains, ye rebels;" upon which said Com- 
pany dispersing, the foremost of the three officers 
ordered their men, saying, "Fire, by God, fire"; 
at which moment we received a very heavy 

20 and close fire from them; at which instant, being 
wounded, I fell, and several of our men were shot 
dead by one volley. Captain Parker's men, I be- 
lieve, had not then fired a gun. 
(/) Col. 492. [Benjamin Tidd and Joseph Abbott 

25 depose, April 25th]: 

. . . That on the morning of the nineteenth of 
April instant, about five o'clock, being on Lexing- 
ton common, and mounted on horses, we saw a 
body of Regular Troops marching up to the Lexing- 

31 



Source Problems in United States History 

ton Com])any which was then divSpersing. Soon after 
the Regulars fired first a few guns, which we took 
to be pistols from some of the Regulars who were 
mounted on horses, and then the said Regulars 

s fired a volley or two before any guns were fired by 
the Lexington Company. Our horses immediately 
started and we rode off. 

(g) Col. 492. [The following deposition was 
signed, April 25th, by thirty-four men]: 

10 On the nineteenth of April instant, about one or 
two o'clock in the morning, being informed that 
several officers of the Regulars had, the evening 
before, been riding up and down the road, and had 
detained and insulted the inhabitants passing the 

IS same; and also understanding that a body of Regu- 
lars were marching from Boston towards Concord, 
with intent (as it was supposed) to take the stores 
belonging to the Colony in that Town, we were 
alarmed; and having met at the place of our Com- 

20 pany's parade, were dismissed by our Captain, John 
Parker, for the present, with orders to be ready to 
attend at the beat of the drum. We further testify 
and declare, that about five o'clock in the morning, 
hearing our drum beat, we proceeded towards the 

25 parade, and soon found that a large body of Troops 
were marching towards us. Some of our Company 
were coming up to the parade, and others had 
reached it; at which time the Company began to 
disperse. Wliilst our backs were turned on the 

32 



The Battle of Lexington 

Troops we were fired on by them, and a number of 
our men were instantly killed and wounded. Not 
a gun was fired by any jjerson in our Comj)any on 
the Regulars, to our knowledge, before they fired 
5 on us, and they continued firing until we had all 
made our escape. 

(h) Col. 493. [April 25th fourteen others sign a 
deposition, the first jjart of which is practically 
identical with the foregoing. They continue]: 

10 We were faced towards the Regulars, then march- 
ing up to us, and some of our Company were coming 
to the Parade with their backs towards the Troops, 
and others on the i)arade began to dispense, when 
the Regulars fired on the Comjmny before a gun was 

15 fired by any of our Company on them; they killed 

eight of our Company, and wounded several, and 

continued their fire until we had all made our escape. 

(i) Col. 494. [Timothy Smith, April 25th, testifies] : 

. . . Being at Lexington common as a spectator, I 

20 saw a large body of Regular Troops marching up 
towards the Lexington Company, then dispersing, 
and likewise saw the Regular Troops fire on the 
Lexington Company, before the latter fired a gun. 
I immediately ran, and a volley was discharged at 

25 rwe, which put me in imminent danger of losing my 
life. I soon returned to the common, and saw eight 
of the Lexington men who were killed, and lay 
?)leeding, at a considerable distance from each 
other, and several were wounded. 

33 



Source Problems in United States History 

(/) Col. 494. [Levi Harrington and Levi Mead 
testify, April 25th]: 

Being on Lexington Common as spectators, we 

saw a large body of Regular Troops marching up 

5 towards the Lexington Company, and some of the 

Regulars on horses, whom we took to be officers, 

fired a pistol or two on the Lexington Company, 

which was then dispersing. These were the first 

guns that were fired, and they were immediately 

10 followed by several volleys from the Regulars. . . . 

(k) Col. 495. [William Draper testifies, April 

25 th]: 

. . . Being on the parade of said Lexington, April 
19th instant, about half an hour before sunrise the 
15 King's Regular Troops appeared at the meeting- 
house of Lexington. Captain Parker's Company, 
who were drawn up back of said meeting-house on 
the parade, turned from said Troops, making their 
escape by dispersing; in the mean time the Regular 
20 Troops made a huzza and ran towards Captain Par- 
ker's Company, who were dispersing, and immedi- 
ately after the huzza was made the commanding 
officer of said Troops (as I took him) gave the com- 
mand to the said Troops: "Fire! fire! damn you, 
25 fire!" and immediately they fired before any of 
Captain Parker's Company fired, I then being 
within three or four rods of said Regular Troops. 

(/) Col. 495. [April 23d Thomas Fessenden de- 
poses that]: 

34 



The l^attlc of Lexington 

Being in a pasture near the meeting-house . . . 
at about half an hour before sunrise, I saw a num- 
ber of Regular Troops pass speedily by said meeting- 
house on their way towards a Company of Militia 
5 of said Lexington, who were assembled to the num- 
ber of about one hundred in a Company at the 
distance of eighteen or twenty rods from said meet- 
ing-house, and after they had passed by said meet- 
ing-house, I saw three officers on horseback advance 

10 to the front of said Regulars, when one of them, 
being within six rods of the said Militia, cried out 
"Disperse, you rebels, immediately;" on which he 
brandished his sword over his head three times; 
meanwhile the second officer, who was about two 

15 rods behind him, fired a pistol pointed at said Militia, 
and the Regulars kept huzzaing till he had finished 
brandishing his sword, and when he had thus fin- 
ished brandishing his sword, he j^ointed it down 
towards said Militia, and immediately on which the 

20 said Regulars fired a volley at the Militia, and then 
I ran off as fast as I could, while they continued 
firing till I got out of their reach. I further testify, 
that as soon as ever the officer cried ' * Disperse, you 
rebels," the said Company of Militia dispersed every 

25 way as fast as they could, and while they were dis- 
persing the Regulars kejjt firing at them incessantly, 
(m) Col. 496. [Deposition of a British soldier, 
captured; made April 23d]. 

I, John Bateman, belonging to the Fifty-wSecond 
4 35 



Source Problems in United States History 

Regiment, commanded by Colonel Jones, . . . was 
in the party marching to Concord . . . ; being nigh 
the meeting-house in . . . Lexington, there was a small 
party of men gathered together in that place when 

5 our Troops marched by, and I testify and declare, 
that I heard the word of command given to the 
Troops to fire, and some of said Troops did fire, and 
I saw one of said small part}^ lay dead on the ground 
nigh said meeting-house, and I testify that I never 

10 heard any of the inhabitants so much as fire ojie 
gun on said Troops. 

(n) Col. 500. [Deposition of Lieutenant Gould, 
wounded and captured; taken April 25th.] 

. . . On our arrival at [Lexington], we saw a body 

IS of Provincial Troops armed, to the number of about 
sixty or seventy men ; on our arrival they dispersed, 
and soon after firing began; but which party fired 
first, I cannot exactly say, as our Troops rushed on 
shouting and huzzaing previous to the firing, which 

20 was continued by our Troops as long as any of the 
Provincials were to be seen. . . . 
12. Col. 625 ff. [From a letter of the Rev. Wm. 
Gordon to a gentleman in England, dated 
May 17, 1775.] 

25 ... Soon after the affair [at Lexington, etc.], 
knowing what untruths are propagated by each 
party in matters of this nature, I concluded that I 
would ride to Concord, inquire for myself, and not 
rest upon the depositions that might be taken by 

36 



The Battle of Lexington 

others. Accordingly I went the last week. The 
Provincial Congress have taken depositions, which 
they have forwarded to Great Britain; but the 
Ministry and pretended friends to Government, will 
s cry them down, as being evidence from party per- 
sons and rebels; the like may be objected against 
the present account, as it will materially contradict 
what has been published in Boston, though not ex- 
pressly, yet as it is commonly supposed by au- 

10 thority; however, with the impartial world, and 

those who will not imagine me capable of sacrificing 

honesty to the old, at present heretical, principles 

of the Revolution,^ it may have some weight. . . . 

Upon information being received about half an 

15 hour after, that the Troops were not far off, the re- 
mains of the company who were at hand collected 
together, to the amount of about sixty or seventy, 
by the time the Regulars appeared, but were chiefly 
in a confused state, only a few of them being drawn 

20 up, which accounts for other witnesses making the 
number less, about thirty. There were present as 
spectators, about forty more, scarce any of whom 
had arms. The printed accounts tell us, indeed, 
that they observed about two hundred armed men. 

25 Possibly the intelligence they had before received 
had frightened those that gave the account to the 
General, so that they saw more than double. The 
said account, which has little truth in it, says "that 

1 /. e., the Revolution of 1688-9, 
d7 



Source Problems in United States History 

Major Pit cairn galloping up to the head of the 
advanced companijes, two officers informed him, that 
a man (advanced from those that were assembled) 
had presented his musket, and attempted to shoot 

5 them, but the piece flashed in the pan." 

The simple truth, I take to be this, which I re- 
ceived from one of the prisoners at Concord in free 
conversation, one James Marr, a native of Aber- 
deen, in Scotland, of the Fourth Regiment, who was 

lo upon the advanced guard, consisting of six, besides 
a sergeant and corporal: They were met by three 
men on horseback before they got to the meeting- 
house a good way ; an officer bid them stop ; to which 
it was answered, you had better turn back, for you 

15 shall not enter the Town; when the said three per- 
sons rode back again, and at some distance one of 
them offered to fire, but the piece flashed in the pan 
without going off. I asked Marr whether he could 
tell if the piece was designed at the soldiers, or to 

20 give an alarm? He could not say which. The said 
Marr further declared, that when they and the 
others were advanced, Major Pit cairn said to the 
Lexington Company, (which, by the by, was the 
only one there,) stop, you rebels! and he supposed 

25 that the design was to take away their arms; but 
upon seeing the Regulars they dispersed, and a fir- 
ing commenced, but who fired first he could not say. 
. . . Samuel Lee, a private in the Eighteenth 
Regiment, Royal Irish, acquainted me, that it was 

38 



The Battle of Lexington 

the talk among the soldiers that Major Pitcaim 
fired his pistol, then drew his sword, and ordered 
them to fire; which agrees with what Levi Harring- 
ton, a youth of fourteen last November, told me. . . . 
5 Mr. Paul Revere, v/ho was sent express, was taken 
and detained some time by the officers, being after- 
wards upon the spot, and finding the Regulars at 
hand, passed through the Lexington Company with 
another, having between them a box of papers be- 

lo longing to Mr. Hancock, and went down a cross 
road, till there was a house so between him and the 
company as that he could not see the latter; he 
told me likewise, that he had not got half a gun-shot 
from them before the Regulars appeared; that they 

15 halted about three seconds; that upon hearing the 
report of a pistol or gun, he looked round, and saw 
the smoke in front of the Regulars, our people being 
out of view because of the house ; then the Regulars 
huzzaed and fired, first two more guns, then the 

20 advanced guard, and so the whole body. The bul- 
lets flying thick about him, and he having nothing 
to defend himself with, ran into a wood, where he 
halted and heard the firing for about a quarter of 
an hour. . . . 

25 I shall not trouble you with more particulars, but 
give you the substance as it lies in my own mind, 
collected from the persons whom I examined for my 
own satisfaction. The Lexington Company upon 
seeing the Troops, and being of themselves so un- 

39 



Source Problems in United States History 

equal a match for them, were deHberating for a few 
moments what they should do, when several dis- 
persing of their own heads, the Captain soon ordered 
the rest to disperse for their own safety. Before the 

s order was given, three or four of the regular officers, 
seeing the company as they came up on the rising 
ground on this side the meeting [house], rode forward 
one or more, round the meeting-house, leaving it on 
the right hand, and so came upon them that way; 

10 upon coming up one cried out, ''you damned rebels, 
lay down your arms;" another, "stop, you rebels;" a 
third, "disperse, you rebels," &c. Major Pitcaim, I 
suppose, thinking himself justified by Parliamentary 
authority to consider them as rebels, perceiving 

15 that they did not actually lay down their arms, ob- 
serving that the generality were getting off, while a 
few continued in their military position, and appre- 
hending there could be no great hurt in killing a 
few such Yankees, which might probably, according 

20 to the notions that had been instilled into his head 
by the tory party, of the Americans being poltroons, 
end all the contest, gave the command to fire, then 
fired his own pistol, and so set the whole affair agoing. 
The printed account says very different; but what- 

25 ever the General may have sent home in support of 
that account, the publick have nothing but bare 
assertions, and I have such valid evidence of the 
falsehood of several matters therein contained, that 
with me it has very little weight. The same ac- 

40 



The Battle of Lexington 

count tells us, that sev^eral shots were fired from a 
meeting house on the left, of which I heard not a 
single syllable, either from the prisoners or others, 
and the mention of which it would have been almost 
s impossible to have avoided, had it been so, by one 
or another among the numbers with whom I freely 
and familiarly conversed. ... To what I have wrote 
respecting Major Pitcairn, I am sensible his general 
character may be objected. But character must not 

10 be allowed to overthrow positive evidence when 
good, and the conclusions fairly deduced therefrom. 
. . . There were killed at Lexington eight persons. 
. . . [Gordon then describes the fight at Concord 
Bridge]. . . . The narrative tells us, that as Captain 

15 Parsons returned with his three companies over the 
bridge, they observed three soldiers on the ground, 
one of them scalped, his head much mangled, and 
his ears cut off, though not quite dead; all this is 
not fiction, though the most is. The Reverend Mr. 

20 Emerson informed me how the matter was, with 
great concern for its having happened. A young 
fellow coming over the bridge in order to join the 
country people, and seeing the soldier wounded and 
attempting to get up, not being under the feelings 

25 of humanity, very barbarously broke his skull, and 
let out his brains with a small axe, (apprehend of 
the tomahawk kind,) but as to his being scalped 
and having his ears cut off, there was nothing in 
it. . . , The people say that the soldiers are worse 

41 



Source Problems in United States Histor^^ 

than the Indians. . . . The Regulars had more than 
one hundred killed, and one hundred and fifty- 
wounded, besides about fifty taken prisoners. The 
country people had about forty killed, seven or eight 

5 taken prisoners, and a few wounded. 
13. Col. 673 ff. A Narrative of the Excursion and 
Ravages of the King's Troops, under the com- 
mand of General Gage, on the nineteenth of 
April, 1775; together with the Depositions 

10 taken by order of Congress to support the 

truth of it. Published by authority. 

On the nineteenth day of April, one thousand seven 

hundred and seventy-five, a day to be remembered 

by all Americans of the present generation, and 

15 which ought, and doubtless will be handed down to 
ages yet unborn, the Troops of Britain, unprovoked, 
shed the blood of sundry of the loyal American sub- 
jects of the British King in the field of Lexington. 
. . . The inhabitants of Lexington, and the other 

20 Towns were about one hundred, some with and some 
without firearms, who had collected upon informa- 
tion that the detachment had secretly marched from 
Boston. . . . This small party of the inhabitants was 
so far from being disposed to commit hostilities 

25 against the Troops of their Sovereign, that, unless 
attacked, they were determined to be peaceable 
spectators of this extraordinary movement; im- 
mediately on the approach of Colonel Smith with 
the detcichraent under his command, they dispersed; 

42 



The Battle of Lexington 

but the detachment, seeming to thirst for blood, 
wantonly rushed on, and first began the hostile 
scene by firing on this small party, by which they 
killed eight men on the spot, and wounded several 
5 others before any guns were fired upon the Troops 
by our men. Not contented with this effusion of 
blood, as if malice had occupied their whole souls, 
they continued the fire, until all of this small party 
who escaped the dismal carnage were out of the 
'o reach of their fire. 

. . . The devastation committed by the British 
Troops on their retreat, the whole of the way from 
Concord to Charlestown, is almost beyond descrip- 
tion; such as plundering and burning of dwelling- 
's houses and other buildings, driving into the street 
women in child-bed; killing old men in their houses 
unarmed. Such scenes of desolation would be a 
reproach to the perpetrators, even if committed by 
the most barbarous Nations; how much more when 
'■o done by Britons famed for humanity and tender- 
ness! and all this because these Colonies will not 
submit to the iron yoke of arbitrary power. 
14. [The depositions quoted above are added, and 
in addition the following]: 
'■5 (a) Col. 674. 

Concord, May 11, 1775- 
We, the subscribers, of lawful age, testify and say, 
that we buried the dead bodies of the King's Troops 
that were killed at the North Bridge in Concord, 

43 



Source Problems in United States History 

on the nineteenth day of April, 1775, where the 
action first began, and that neither of these persons 
was scalped, nor their ears cut off, as has been rep- 
resented. 
5 Zachariah Brown, 

Thomas Davis, Jr. 

(6) Col. 674. [Mrs. Hannah Adams deposes, 
May 17 th]: 

. . . Three of the soldiers broke into the room in 
10 which I then was laid on my bed, being scarcely 
able to walk from my bed to the fire, and not having 
been to my chamber door from my being delivered 
in child-birth to that time. One of said soldiers 
immediately opened my curtains with his bayonet 
IS fixed, and pointing the same to my breast. I im- 
mediately cried out, "for the Lord's sake don't kill 
me." He replied, "damn you." One that stood 
near, said, "we will not hurt the woman if she will 
get out of the house, but we will surely burn it." I 
20 immediately arose, threw a blanket over me, went 
out, and crawled into a corn-house near the door, 
with my infant in my arms, where I remained until 
they were gone. They immediately set the house 
on fire, in which I had left five children and no other 
25 person; but the fire was happily extinguished. . . . 
(c) Col. 674. [Benjamin and Rachel Cooper, of 
Cambridge, depose, May 19th]: 

Upon their return from blood and slaughter which 
they had made at Lexington and Concord, [the 

44 



The Battle of Lexington 

troops] fired more than one hundred bullets into the 
hoUvSe where we dwell, through doors, windows, &c; 
then a number of them entered the house where 
we and two aged gentlemen were, all unarmed. We 
5 escaped for our lives into the cellar; the two aged 
gentlemen were immediately most barbarously and 
inhumanely murdered by them, being stabbed 
through in many places, their heads mauled, sculls 
broke, and their brains beat out on the floor and 

10 walls of the house. . . . 

15. History of the Battle oj Lexington ^ by Elias 
Phinney, Preface. 
. . . The question, then [f ^., in 1775], to be decided 
v/as, whether the Americans fired FIRwST, not 

15 whether they fired AT ALL. . . . The inhabitants of 
Lexington feel it to be particularly incumbent on 
them to lay this statement of facts before the publick, 
at this time, on account of some recent publications 
stating that "AT CONCORD THE FIRST BLOOD 

20 WAvS SHED BETWEEN THE BRITLSH AND 
THE ARMED AMERICANS;" and also, that the 
"FIRST FORCIBLE RESISTANCE" was made 
at that place. 

These statements, coming from very respectable 

25 sources, were viewed Vjy the people of Lexington as 
not only calculated to give an erroneous imx)ression 
to the world respecting the place, where the revolu- 
tionary war commenced; but, more particularly, to 
deprive the town of Lexington of the honour of hav- 

45 



Source Problems in United States History 

ing raised the first standard of an armed opposi- 
tion to the unjust and tyrannical measures of the 
mother country. . . . [Therefore the town appointed 
a committee to take testimony, and prepare an 

5 account. The depositions are in an appendix to 
this history.] 

1 6. (a) pp. 31-33. [Deposition taken in 1825, in 
Appendix to Phinney's History. EHjah 
Sanderson, aged 73, describes being stopped 

10 by British officers, and continues]: 

I went to the tavern. The citizens were coming 
and going; some went down to find whether the 
British were coming; some came back, and said there 
was no truth in it. I went into the tavern, and, 

IS after a while, went to sleep in my chair by the fire. 
In a short time after, the drum beat, and I ran out 
to the common, where the militia were parading. 
The captain ordered them to fall in. I then fell 
in. 'Twas all in the utmost haste. The British 

20 troops were then coming on in full sight. I had 
no musket, having sent it home, the night previous, 
by my brother, before I started for Concord; and, 
reflecting I was of no use, I stepped out again from 
the company about two rods, and was gazing at the 

25 British, coming on in full career. Several mounted 
British officers were forward; I think, five. The 
commander rode up, with his pistol in his hand, on 
a canter, the others following, to about eight or ten 
rods from the company, perhaps nearer, and ordered 

46 



The Battle of Lexington 

them to disperse. The words he used were harsh. 
I cannot remember them exactly. He then said, 
"Fire!" and he fired his own pistol, and the other 
officers sooa fired, and with that the main body came 

5 up and fired, but did not take sight. They loaded 
again as soon as f)Ossible. All was smoke when the 
foot fired. I heard no particular orders after what 
the commander first said. I looked, and, seeing 
nobody fall, thought to be sure they couldn't be 

10 firing balls, and I didn't move off. After our militia 
had dispersed, I saw them firing at one man, (vSolo- 
mon Brown), who was stationed behind a wall. I 
saw the wall smoke with the bullets hitting it. 
I then knew they were firing balls. After the affair 

15 was over, he told me he fired into a solid column of 
them, and then retreated. 

(b) pp. 31-35. [Deposition of Wm. Munro, or- 
derly sergeant, taken in 1825.] 

. . . Capt. Parker dismissed his company, with 

2c orders to assemble again at the beat of the drum. 
Between day-light and sun-rise, Capt. Thaddeus 
Bowman rode up and informed, that the regulars 
were near. The dram was then ordered to be beat, 
and I was commanded by Capt. Parker to parade 

25 the company, which I accordingly did, in two ranks, 
a few rods northerly of the meeting-house. 

When the British troops had arrived within about 
a hundred rods of the meeting-house, as I was after- 
wards told by a prisoner, which we took, "they heard 

47 



Source Problems in United States History 

our drum, and supposing it to be a challenge, they 
were ordered to load their muskets, and to move 
at double quick time." They came up almost upon 
a run. Col. Smith and Maj. Pitcairn rode up some 

s rods in advance of their troops, and within a few 
rods of our company, and exclaimed, "Lay down 
your arms, you rebels, and disperse!" and immedi- 
ately fired his pistol. Pitcairn then advanced, and, 
after a moment's conversation with Col. Smith, he 

10 advanced with his troops, and, finding we did not 
disperse, they being within four rods of us, he 
brought his sword down with great force, and said 
to his men, ''Fire, damn you, fire!" The front 
platoon, consisting of eight or nine, then fired, 

IS without killing or wounding any of our men. They 
immediately gave a second fire, when our company 
began to retreat, and, as I left the field, I saw a 
person firing at the British troops from Buckman's 
back door, which was near our left, where I was 

20 parading the men when I retreated. . . . How many 
of our company fired before they retreated, I can- 
not say; but I am confident some of them did. . . . 
(^) P- 35- [Deposition of John Munro, aged 77, 
taken in 1825. After the alarm.] 

25 I immediately repaired to the place of parade, 
which was the common, adjoining the meeting- 
house, where sixty or seventy of the company had 
assembled in arms. Capt. Parker ordered the roll 
to be called, and every man to load his piece with 

48 



The Battle of Lexington 

powder and ball. After remaining on parade some 
time, and there being no further accounts of the 
approach of the regulars, we were dismissed, but 
ordered to remain within call of the drum. About 
s day-light, Capt. Parker had information, that a 
regiment of British troops were near, and immedi- 
ately ordered the drum beat to arms. I took my 
station on the right. While the company were col- 
lecting, Capt. Parker, then on the left, gave orders 

10 for every man to stand his ground until he should 
order them to leave. Many of the company had 
withdrawn to a considerable distance, and, by the 
time sixty or seventy of them had collected, the 
drum still beating to arms, the front ranks of the 

15 British troops appeared within twelve or fifteen rods 
of our line. They continued their march to within 
about eight rods of us, when an officer on horseback, 
Lt. Col. Smith, who rode in front of the troops, ex- 
claimed, "Lay down your arms, and disperse, you 

20 rebels!" Finding our company .kept their ground, 
Col. Smith ordered his troops to fire. This order 
not being obeyed, he then said to them, "G-d damn 
you, fire!" The front platoon then discharged 
their pieces, and, another order being given to fire, 

25 there was a general discharge from the front ranks. 
After the first fire of the regulars, I thought, and so 
stated to Ebenezer Munro, Jun. who stood next to 
me on the left, that they had fired nothing but 
powder; but, on the vSecond firing, A^Iunro said, they 

49 



Source Problems in United States Histor\ 



had fired something more than powder, for he had 
received a wound in his arm; and now, said he, to 
use his own words, "I'll give them the guts of my 
gun." We both then took aim at the main body 

5 of the British troops, — the smoke preventing our 
seeing anything but the heads of some of their horses, 
— and discharged our pieces. . . . After I had fired the 
first time, I retreated about ten rods, and then loaded 
my gun a second time, with two balls, and, on firing 

at the British, the strength of the charge took off 
about a foot of my gun barrel. 

Such was the general confusion, and so much 
firing on the part of the British, that it was im- 
possible for me to know the number of our men, 

5 who fired immediately on receiving the second 
fire from the British; but that some of them 
fired, besides Ebenezer Munro and myself, I ^am 
very confident. . . . 

(d) p. 36. [Deposition of Ebenezer Munro, aged 

'072, taken in 1825. After the second alarm.] 

About seventy of our company had assembled 
when the British troops appeared. Some of our' 
men went into the meeting-house, where the town's 
powder was kept, for the purpose of replenishing 

J5 their stock of ammunition. When the regulars had 
arrived within eighty or one hundred rods, they, 
hearing our drum beat, halted, charged their guns, 
and doubled their ranks, and marched up at quick 
step. Capt. Parker ordered his men to stand their 

so 



The Battle of Lexington 

ground, and not to molest the regulars, unless they 
meddled with us. The British troops came up 
directly in our front. The commanding officer ad- 
vanced within a few rods of us, and exclaimed, "Dis- 

5 perse, you damned rebels ! you dogs, run ! — Rush on 
my boys!" and fired his pistol. The fire from their 
front ranks soon followed. After the first fire, I 
received a wound in my arm, and then, as I turned 
to run, I discharged my gun into the main body 

10 of the enemy. ... As we retreated, one of our com- 
pany, Benjamin vSampson, I believe, who was run- 
ning with me, turned his piece and fired. When 
I fired, I perfectly w^ell recollect of taking aim at 
the regulars. ... I am confident, that it was the 

IS determination of most of our company, in case they 

were fired ujDon, to return the fire. I did not hear 

Capt. Parker's orders to his company to disperse. 

(<?) P- 3 7- [Deposition of Wm. Tidd, Lieutenant 

in Parker's company, taken in 1825. After saying 

20 that "it was expected the British would soon com- 
mence hostilities upon the then Provincials" and 
that the "company frequently met for exercise, the 
better to be prepared for defence," he describes the 
alarm] : 

25 On the beat to arms, I immediately repaired to 
where our company were fast assembling ; that when 
about sixty or seventy of them had taken post, the 
British had arrived within sight, and were advanc- 
ing on a quick march towards us, when I distinctly 
'^ 51 



Source Problems in United States History 

heard one of their officers say, ' ' Lay down your arms 
and disperse, ye rebels!" They then fired upon 
us. . . . 

(/) P- 3^- [Nathan Munro, deposition taken in 

5 1825.] 

. . . When arrived at the common, the bell was ring- 
ing, and the company collecting. I immediately 
got my arms and went to the parade. Capt. Parker 
gave orders to us to load our guns, but not to fire, 

10 unless we were fired upon first. About five o'clock 
in the morning, the British made their appearance 
at the east end of the meeting-house, near where 
our men were, and immediately commenced firing 
on us. I got over the wall into Buckman's land, 

IS about six rods from the British, and then turned 
and fired at them. . . . 

te) P- 39- [Deposition of Joseph Underwood, 
aged 75, taken in 1825.] 

. . . When the regulars had arrived within about 

20 one hundred rods of our line, they charged their 
pieces, and then moved toward us at a quick step. 
Some of our men, on seeing them, proposed to quit 
the field, but Capt. Parker gave orders for every 
man to stand his ground, and said he would order 

25 the first man shot, that offered to leave his post. I 
stood very near Capt. Parker, when the regulars 
came up, and am confident he did not order his 
men to disperse, till the British troops had fired upon 
us the second time. 

52 



The Battle of Lexington 

17. Life and Correspondence of Theodore Parker, by- 

John Weiss, I, 12. 
[From a letter dated September 10, 1858, from 
Theodore Parker to George Bancroft.] 

5 At the battle of Lexington, when Capt. P[arker] 
drew up his men as the British were nearing, he 
ordered ' * every man to load ' ' his piece with powder 
and ball. ''Don't fire unless fired upon; but if they 
fnean to have a war, let it begin here!'' I think these 

10 significant w^ords ought to be preserved.^ They 
were kept as the family tradition of the day, and 
when the battle was re-enacted in 1820 (or there- 
about), his orderly sergeant took the Captain's 
place, and repeated the words, adding, "For them 

15 is the very words Captain Parker said." Besides, 
some of the soldiers, when they saw the flash of the 
British guns, turned to run : he drew his sword, and 
said, ''I will order the first man shot that offers to 
run!" Nobody ran till he told them, "Disperse 

20 and take care of yourselves." 

18. Historical Magazine, Series I, 4:202. 

[From a letter dated February 16, 1858, by 
Theodore Parker.] 

. . . He [Parker] ordered the drum beat in front of 

25 the tavern, close by the Common. Seventy men 

appeared, were formed into four platoons, and 

marched on to the Common. His nephew, Jona- 

^ These words appear on the monument erected at Lexington in 
1884 to commemorate the battle. 

53 



Source Problems in United States Histor}/^ 

than Harrington, the last survivor of the battle, 
then a lad of sixteen, pla3^ed the fife, which, with 
a drum, was the only music. He formed them in a 
single line, then wheeled the first and fourth platoons 

s at right angles, stepped in front and ordered every 
man to load his piece with powder and ball. When 
this was done, he said: "Don't fire unless fired upon. 
But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." 
He then wheeled back the two wings into a con- 

10 tinuous line, and stood a little in front of the end 
of the right wing. Soon the British came close upon 
them, and some were soon terrified, and began to 
skulk off. He drew his sword, and called them by 
name to come back, and said he would order the 

IS first man shot who should run away. .... 



PROBLEM II 
II. — The Preliminaries of the Revolution 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 



I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM 

IT is not necessary to relate here the historical facts 
leading up to the American Revolution. It is neces- 
sary to give the principle on which, the following docu- 
ments and extracts of documents have been chosen. 
They have been chosen to illustrate the different kinds of 
arguments about the power of Parliament, and especially 
its right to tax the colonists. The basis of the selection 
is not to enable the student to decide which side, the 
English or the American, was right — i. e., legally justified; 
the historical fact is that there were differences of opin- 
ion; another historical fact is that even those denying 
the power of Parliament did not all use the same line 
of argument. The nature of these arguments is im- 
portant because we can find in them thoughts and 
principles which were to be embodied in institutions of 
government or which were to control the operations of 
government. The important fact to be seen is that in 
the stress of controversy the Americans were announcing 
principles of great moment for our later constitutional 
history. What is meant by this statement will be made 
clearer in succeeding paragraphs. 

We may select as fundamental in our whole govern- 
mental system in America two facts or two principles: 
first, we have written constitutions. The chief thing, 

57 



Source Problems in United States History 

however, is not that they are written, but that they are 
binding on the government; the government is set 
up by the people who have given authority and have 
hmited authority by fundamental law; we have "rigid 
constitutions" — i. e., constitutions not to be varied by 
any ordinary act of legislation. The fundamer.tal 
constitutional principle is that government has not in- 
herent and original, but only delegated and derived 
authority. This principle underlies our federal and our 
state constitutions, and is clearly set forth as far as the 
states are concerned in the bills of rights of the state 
constitutions. 

The second fact, which might also be called a princi- 
ple, is that the United States as a whole is not a simple 
state, but a federal state; that is to say, we have a re- 
public of republics; we have a national government and 
also states with their govermnents ; authority is thus dis- 
tributed ajnong governments; each government has au- 
thority within its sphere. Before there could be any 
conception of such a state, men had to see that "powers" 
of government could be distinguished one from another; 
e. g., the taxing power from the power to regulate com- 
merce. Our present system of political order — the federal 
state — is complicated; the machinery appears intricate 
because we have two governments immediately over each 
individual. We need not wonder, therefore, that there 
was difficulty, in the days of Revolutionary argument, 
in grasping the principle on which such a complicated 
system could rest. A generation of political discussions 
(1754-1787) was needed before the principle of federation 
was grasped: as early as 1754, by the Albany plan of 
union, an effort was made to arrange a scheme for the 
organization of the empire; and in one way or another 
the problem remained unsolved until, after the colonies 
had separated from Britain, the necessity of "a more 

58 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

perfect union" became imperative here in America and 
the Constitution of the United States was estabHshed. 

Now if we examine even the few documents presented 
here, we shall find men putting forth or struggling with 
the two ideas or principles mentioned above. (I) On one 
side, the American, it was declared that Parliament did 
not have all power over the individual man, that govern- 
ment was limited and restrained and had only delegated 
authority; government rested on the consent of the gov- 
erned — i. e., was originally made by people. On the 
other side the omnipotence of Parliament was asserted. 
(II) Again the colonists claimed to have their own in- 
stitutions, and, while the Americans, almost to the end, 
generally admitted that Parliament had authority, they 
denied that Parliament was possessed of all authority in 
the empire; in other words, they declared, though they 
did not quite thoroughly see the whole system which 
they advocated, that the empire was not a centralized 
empire, but was possessed of many governments each 
having authority in its own sphere. They were,, therefore, 
struggling with the idea of federalism, the existence of a 
state characterized by distribution of authority among 
governments. The English empire had been in practice 
a federated empire. There were various governments; 
the central legislative authority had commonly legislated 
on imperial concerns — on the post-office, intercolonial 
and foreign commerce, foreign affairs, etc., while the 
colonial assemblies had managed local affairs, particularly 
taxation. The question (i 764-1 7 76) was really, therefore, 
whether this practice constituted o. fundamental legal basis 
of the empire. Were the colonies and Parliament legally 
entitled to authority within their respective spheres and 
nothing more? 

That the colonists contended strongly against un- 
limited power, and especially unlimited power over indi- 

59 



Source Problems in United States History 

viduals, will appear clearly enough from even the docu- 
ments here given. It is not so clear that they were at 
any time so consciously arguing for the rights of the 
colonies as colonies in the make-up of the empire; as to 
that there was some confusion, perhaps; certainly one 
might say that the Massachusetts House, in 1773, did not 
see the empire as a composite or federated empire at all. 
Notice, however, especially, Dickinson's claim and the 
assertions of the Council in ''the great controversy" with 
Hutchinson. 

While the sources presented in this volume are not 
selected to enable the student to see which side was 
legally right, it has seemed well to insert portions of "the 
great controversy" of 1773. That controversy ver}- fully 
and ably exposed the legal arguments on both sides, and, 
even from such excerpts as we are able to print here, we 
can see the nature of these argiunents. Such excerpts 
also show the problem of imperial order and some of the 
ideas of the colonists, which are in themselves significant 
as helping to make institutions. 



II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

1 . TJie RigJits of tJic BritisJi Colonics Asserted a)id Proved, 
by James Otis, Esq. (Boston, 1764.) 

The volume was written after the issuing of the Revenue 
Act of 1764 and before the Stamp Act. Otis was for some 
years an influential figure in ]\Iassachusetts politics, and 
the principles that he enunciated were doubtless widely 
discussed. 

2. Patrick Henry. Life, Correspondence and Speeches, 
by William Wirt Henry, Vol. I. (New York, 1891.) 

3. Patrick Henry, by Moses Coit Tyler. (Boston, iSgS.) 
The \^irginia resolutions were presented to the House 

60 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

of Burgesses by Patrick Henry on IMa}- 29, 1765. The 
first five of the resokitions as here given, and probably 
only the first five, were passed by the House the next 
day. There has been some difficulty in deciding just 
what the original series of resolutions contained. The 
fact presumably is that, of the seven resolutions here 
printed, all were written and presented by Henr}^; that 
resolutions 6 and 7 and the preamble were not adopted 
by the House, and that 5 was later expunged; that, 
however, the original resolutions, as presented by Henry, 
with the exception of 3 , which for some reason was dropped 
out, were published in the newspapers. 

4. Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America, etc., 
H. Niles, editor. (Baltimore, 1S22.) 

This contains the Journal of the Stamp Act Congress, 
said to have been copied from the official copy found 
among the papers of Caesar Rodney, one of the delegates 
from Delaware. The resolutions in full are thirteen in 
number, with an opening statement and a final unnum- 
bered resolution requesting appeal. See also William 
IMacDonald, Select Charters and other Docnments Illus- 
trative of American History, 1606-iyy^. (New York, 1899.) 

5. The Parliamentary History of England from the Earliest 
Period to the Year 1803, from which last mentioned Epoch 
it is Continued downwards in the Work entitled *'TJie 
Parliamentary Debates." Vol. XVI, 1765-17 71. (Lon- 
don, 1813.) 

Debates in Parliament were not officially reported and 
published at this time. The debate in the Commons 
on the address of thanks to the King, from which we 
have chosen portions of speeches by Nugent, Pitt, and 
Grenville, was taken down, doubtless in much condensed 
form, and was published in a pamphlet which, to evade 
the resentment of the House, appeared to be published 
at Paris. The debate in the House of Lords, from which 

61 



Source Problems in United States History 

we have chosen portions of speeches by Lord Lyttelton, 
Lord Camden, and Lord Mansfield, is printed in Parlia- 
mentary History from a manuscript in the Hardwicke 
Collection. The "Speech of Lord Camden on the Ameri- 
can Declaratory Bill" is reprinted in the History from 
the Political Register. 

6. Speeches of the Governors of Massachusetts from lydj 
to i"775; and the answers of the House of Representatives, 
to the same; with their Resolutions and Addresses for that 
period, and other public papers, relating to the dispute 
between this country and Great Britain, which led to the 
Independence of the United States. (Boston, iSi8.) 

The cover title, as well as the running page-heading, 
is Massachusetts State Papers. 

7. The Writings of Samuel Adams. Collected and edited 
by Harry Alonzo Cushing. Vol. I. (New York, 1904.) 

The excerpts taken from the Massachusetts State Papers 
and from the Writings of Adams are portions of letters 
adopted by the Massachusetts House and sent out to 
several persons. The most important is the circular letter, 
so called, which was addressed to the speakers of other 
houses of representatives "on this continent." All con- 
tain much the same sentiments. They are attributed to 
the pen of Samuel i\dams, but on the committee that pre- 
pared them were Otis, Cushing, Hancock, and others. 
It is not unlikely that Otis furnished directly or by his 
previous writing the basic principles. The sentiments 
were put forth in opposition to the Townshend Acts. 

8. Gentleman's Magazine, and Historical Chronicle, Vol. 
XXXVHL (London, 1768.) 

The magazine was edited by "S^dvanus Urban, Gent." 
The name, of course, was a pseudon}-m. The magazine 
contains all kinds of interesting material — poetry, com- 
munications, notices and re\dews of books, and essays or 
discussions on current topics. 

62 



The Preliminaries of the Revouition 

9. The Writings of John Dickinson, \o\. I. Political 
AVritinj^s 1764- 1774. Edited by Paul Leicester Ford. 
(Philadelphia, 1895.) 

This voluine is No. XIV of the Memoirs of the Historical 
Society of Pennsylvania. The excerpts are taken from 
"Letters from a farmer in Pennsylvania," which were 
originally printed in the Pennsylvania Chronicle and Uni- 
versal Advertiser; the first appeared on December 2, 1767, 
the last on February 12, 1768. Various editions were 
published. The letters received wide attention. 



III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

1. Did James Otis assert the courts could declare acts void? 

On what ground? Did he have the acts of Parliament 
in mind? 

2. Did he contend that Parliament's power was limited? In 

the examination of other documents notice how this 
contention underlies the American arguments against 
Parliament's right to tax the colonies. Notice also 
the documents in the next main division of this book. 
(No. III.) 

3. What is the doctrine of the Massachusetts Memorial? 

Does it appear that, in these early days, the power of 
courts to declare laws void and the limits of legislative 
authority were a portion of the revolutionary argu- 
ment? 

4. In Patrick Henry's first resolution does he base freedom 

from Parliamentary taxation on general rights of Eng- 
lishmen or on the structure of the Empire? What is 
the basis of his assertion in the 4th and 5th resolutions? 
In these later resolutions does he rely on the practices 
and the practical make-up of the Empire and the fact 
that the colonial governments have exercised a power 
of taxation? 

5. If Patrick Henry's resolutions stated the true law of the 

6.; 



Source Problems in United States History 

Empire, was it a simple Empire, or a composite Empire 
in \\hich powers were legally distributed? 

6. In the resolutions of the Stamp Act Cong:i-ess is reliance 

placed on the rights of Englishmen, or on the fact that 
the colonies have their own institutions, or on both? 
If there are two distinct assertions, are they contradic- 
tory? Do they ask for representation in Parliament? 

7. Does ]\Ir. Nugent 's statement show that even as early as 

1766 something more was demanded than money? In 
other words, what is the significance of the *' pepper- 
corn" statement? 

8. Outline Pitt's speech. Did the colonies "pai-ticipate" in 

the constitution? 

9. WTiat do you think Pitt meant by the constitution? 

10. Wliat distinctions does he make in discussing the legisla- 

tive power of Parliament? 

11. According to Pitt, have the "Commons" the right to tax? 

WTiat does he mean by constitutional right? 

12. Does Grenville deny the distinction between internal and 

external taxes? Notice Gren\dlle's assertion of ''su- 
preme" power, and mark how much of the later con- 
troversy gathered about assertions of supreme power, 
on the one hand, and hmited power, on the other. In 
the selection from Pitt's reply to Gren\411e. does he 
take up in part the same position as that taken by 
Dickinson later? 

13. Does Franklin commit himself to the distinction between 

internal and external taxation? "WTiat does FrankHn 
say concerning the arguments in Parliament to the 
effect that there was no difference between internal and 
external taxation? To what might such argmnents 
lead? Is it apparent that the real problem is that of 
recognizing that, in the conduct of the Empire, Parlia- 
ment had certain powers and not others? 

14. "^liat was the extent of Lord L\i:telton's claim of power for 

Parliament? Does that statement allow any possibility 
of distribution of power in the Empire? 

15. Does he deny that the colonies make the distinction be- 

64 



The Preliminaries of the Revohition 

twcen intenial and external taxes? If Lyttelton's 
statements were sound, were the colonies totally with- 
out rights under Parliament — i. c, rights which Par- 
liament could not take away? 

1 6. WHiat was Lord Mansfield's assertion? 

17. What is Lord Camden's assertion? Does he base his asser- 

tion on general principles of justice and of man's rights 
under government? What English philosopher does 
he quote? Would Camden's argument be just as good 
if there had been no legislatin-es in America with their 
power of taxation? Would Henrys 's argument be just 
as good? 

18. Give the argument against virtual representation as applied 

to America. Might the principle of virtual representa- 
tion be just in England and unjust when applied to 
America? 
iQ. The source of the assertion that the constitution is fixed 
may be seen by looking at the first document under 
the next division (No. III). In what other sources 
given in this book do you find this assertion? 

20. Does the Massachusetts House base its rights on the British 

constitution? Does the House seem to believe that 
England had a fixed constitution? Distinguish between 
the constitution of the Empire and the British con- 
stitution. 

21. How do these excerpts illustrate the truth that the Ameri- 

cans were claiming, as already existing, what in reality 
they were to produce, viz., a ''fixed" constitution be- 
yond alteration by the legislature? 

22. Does Dickinson accept the distinction between internal 

and external taxation? What particular powers and 
what general powers does he explicitly acknowledge 
to be in the possession of Parliament? How does 
he define a tax? If Parliament could tax and also 
pass and enforce trade regulations, what of American 
liberty? 

23. If Dickinson was right, is it apparent, again, that the 

problem in those days of argument was to distinguish 
65 



Source Problems in United States History 

between ''powers" and to have them distributed among 
governments in the Empire? Do we distinguish now 
between the taxing power and the power to regulate 
commerce? 

24. If such an arrangement as Dickinson defends could have 

been recognized as the law of the Empire, would the 
Empire have been simply a ''unitary" or a composite — 
i. e., federated — Empire? 

25. Does Hutchinson state that the authority of Parliament 

had been recognized by the colonists? What was the 
position of the colonies? Were they like ordinary cor- 
porations, subject to law? Was the authority of Parlia- 
ment now (1773) denied? 

26. How does Hutchinson state the arguments of the colonists? 

How does he seek to refute them by reference to the 
Charter? 

27. Do English subjects, according to Hutchinson, relinquish 

certain rights by removal from England? 

28. What general principle does Hutchinson believe must be 

accepted as conclusive? If there cannot be two inde- 
pendent legislatures, is it possible that there should 
be such a state as we now call a "federal state"? Did 
Hutchinson thus deny the possibility of "federalism"? 
Is there more than one independent legislature in the 
United States now? Does this statement of Hutchin- 
son's and the answer show that the controversy was 
over the theory of the structure of the Empire? 

29. How does the Council discuss "supreme authority"? How 

does the Council deny that Englishmen relinquish the 
right of being governed by their own representatives 
when they remove from the Kingdom? 

30. In the first portion of the answer of the House, notice that 

that body prepares to deny that Parliament has any 
power. Compare this with the Council's denial of 
"supreme authority." 

3 1 . What does the House think is meant by the provision of the 

Charter that a law should not be repugnant to the 
laws of England? 

66 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

52. Does the House deny that the Charter reserved Parlia- 
mentary power? 

^7,. How does the House meet Hutchinson's statement that no 
line can be drawn between the supreme authority of 
Parliament and total independence? Is it thus ap- 
parent that the issue is being reduced to (a) complete 
submission to Parliament, (b) complete independence 
of Parliament? 

34. According to the view of the House, did the Empire center 

in the Parliament or in the King? Have we found be- 
fore that the Council could believe in the limited but 
not complete authority of Parliament? 

35. Does the Governor deny the right of the King to alienate 

territory from the Crown and establish independent 
legislatures? 

36. How does he argue, from the acts of the colonial government 

at the time of the Revolution of 1688, that the colony 
was subject to Parliament? 

37. In the second answer of the Council we find a denial, as 

before, of supreme unlimited- authority. Does the 
House answer in the same way or deny all authority? 
Notice carefully the second answer of the Council. Is 
it apparent that the Council grasped the principle of 
federalism — the permanent legal distribution of powers 
in the Empire? 

38. How does the House meet the Governor's denial of the 

right of the King to alienate territory and establish 
independent legislatures? If the relation is feudal 
only, has Parliament authority? 

39. How does the House meet the assertion that, by proclaiming 

William and Mary, the colonies became subject to 
Parliament? 

40. Compare the position of the House in the Hutchinson con- 

troversy with the assertion made in the first of the 
Stamp Act Congress resolutions. Compare with the 
position of John Dickinson. 

41. Do you know what was the position taken by the Congress 

of 1774? Did the Declaration of Independence deny 
t3 67 



Source Problems in United States History 

that Parliament had had any authority whatever over 
the colonies? 
42. Do you find any evidence in these sources, or in those given 
in Division III following, that there are, in the minds 
of the colonists, certain fundamental rights, existing 
before government, which are beyond the rightful reach 
of government and beyond its legal reach? Do you 
find evidence that they believed and insisted on the 
beUef that governments obtained power from the peo- 
ple rather than granted rights to them? 



IV. The Sources^ 

I. The Rights of the British Colonics asserted and 
proved, by James Otis. (1764.) 
Page 61. 
The equity and justice of a bill may be questioned, 

5 with perfect submission to the legislature. Reasons 
may be given, why an act ought to be repealed, and 
yet obedience must be yielded to it till that repeal 
takes place. If the reasons that can be given against 
an act, are such as plainly demonstrate that it is 

10 against natural equity, the executive courts ^ will 
adjudge such acts void. It may be questioned by 
some, though I make no doubt of it, whether they 
are not obliged by their oaths to adjudge such acts 
void. If there is not a right of private judgment 

IS to be exercised, so far at least as to petition for a 
repeal, or to determine the expediency of risking 
a trial at law, the parliament might make itself 
arbitrary, which it is conceived it cannot by the 
constitution.— I think every man has a right to 

20 examine as freely into the origin, spring and founda- 

1 In Sources 5, 6, and 7 italics are omitted. 

2 The words "executive courts" distinguish the judicial tribunals 
from the "general court," which was the legislature of Massa- 
chusetts. 

69 



Source Problems in United States History 

tion of every power and measure in a common- 
wealth, as into a piece of curious machinery, or a 
remarkable phenomenon in nature; and that it 
ought to give no more offence to say, the parliament 

5 have erred, or are mistaken, in a matter of fact, or 
of right, than to say it of a private man, if it is 
true of both. If the assertion can be proved with 
regard to either, it is a kindness done them to 
shew them the truth. With regard to the public, 

10 it is the duty of every good citizen to point out 
what he thinks erroneous in the commonwealth. 
Pages 70, 71. 

To say the parliament is absolute and arbitrary, 
is a contradiction. The parliament cannot make 2 

IS and 2, 5: Omnipotency cannot do it. The supreme 
power in a state, is jus dicere only : — jus dare, strict- 
ly speaking, belongs alone to God. Parliaments are 
in all cases to declare what is for the good of the 
whole; but it is not the declaration of parliament 

20 that makes it so: There must be in every instance, 
a higher authority, viz., GOD. Should an act of 
parliament be against any of his natural laws, which 
are immutably true, their declaration would be 
contrary to eternal truth, equity and justice, and 

25 consequently void: and so it would be adjudged 
by the parliament itself, when convinced of their 
mistake. Upon this great principle, parliaments re- 
peal such acts, as soon as they find they have been 
mistaken, in having declared them to be for the 

70 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

public good, when in fact they were not so. When 
such mistake is evident and palpable, as in the 
instances in the appendix, the judges of the ex- 
ecutive courts have declared the act "of a whole 
5 parliament void." See here the grandeur of the 
British constitution! See the wisdom of our an- 
cestors! The supreme legislative, and the supreme 
executive, are a perpetual check and balance to 
each other. If the supreme executive errs, it is 
10 informed by the supreme legislative in parliament: 
if the supreme legislative errs, it is informed by the 
supreme executive in the King's courts of law. 

Pages 109-111. 

[Portions of a memorial voted by the Massachusetts 

IS House to be sent to the colony's agent in England. It 

is bound in with Otis's pamphlet and paged with it and, 

for various reasons, may be considered largely his work.] 

The question is not upon the general power or 
right of the parliament, but whether it is not cir- 

20 cumscribed within some equitable and reasonable 
bounds? It is hoped it will not be considered as a 
new doctrine, that even the authority of the parlia- 
ment of Great-Britain is circumscribed by certain 
bounds, which if exceeded, their acts become those 

•25 of meer power without right, and consequently void. 
The judges of England have declared in favour of 
these sentiments, when they expressly declare, that 
acts of parliament against natural equity are void. 
That acts against the fundamental principles of the 

71 



Source Problems in United States History 

British constitution are void. This doctrine is agree- 
able to the law of nature and nations, and to the 
di\'ine dictates of natural and revealed religion. It 
is contrary' to reason that the supreme power should 

5 have right to alter the constitution. This would 
imply, that those who are entrusted with Sover- 
eignty by the people, have a right to do as they 
please. In other words, that those who are in- 
vested with power to protect the people, and sup- 

10 port their rights and liberties, have a right to make 
slaves of them. This is not very remote from a flat 
contradiction. Should the parliament of Great- 
Britain follow the example of some other foreign 
states, and vote the King absolute and despotic; 

15 would such an act of parliament make him so^ 
Would any minister in his senses ad\'ise a Prince 
to accept of such an offer of power? It would be 
unsafe to accept of such a donation, because the 
parliament or donors would grant more than was 

20 ever in their power la^^^ully to give. The law of 
nature never invested them ^^-ith a power of sur- 
rendering their own liberty; and the people certain- 
ly never intrusted any body of men with, a power to 
surrender theirs in exchange for slaver3\^ 

25 1 The Rights of the Colonies also contains an excerpt from Vattel's 
Law of Xations (see Problem III, pp. 137-139). The excerpt is printed 
as a foot-note to the memorial and contains the statement that "the 
constitution of the state ought to be fixed." The wording from the 
translated edition appearing in the present vohmie is "The constitu- 

30 tion of the state ought to possess stability." 

72 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

2. Patrick Henry, by AI. C. Tyler. [Resolutions in 
the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1765.] 
Pages 69-71 [61-63 in earlier edition]. 
Whereas, the honorable House of Commons in 
5 England have of late drawTi into question how far 
the General Assembly of this colony hath power to 
enact laws for laying of taxes and imposing duties, 
payable by the people of this, his majesty's most 
ancient colony: for settling and ascertaining the 
10 same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of 
this present General Assembly have come to the 
following resolves: — 

1 . Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers 
of this, his majesty's colony and dominion, brought 

15 with them and transmitted to their posterity, and 
all other his majesty's subjects, since inhabiting in 
this, his m^'esty's said colony, all the privileges, 
franchises, and immunities that have at any time 
been held, enjoyed and possessed, by the people of 

-^o Great Britain. 

2. Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted 
by king James the First, the colonists aforesaid are 
declared entitled to all the privileges, liberties, and 
immunities of denizens and natural born subjects, 

25 to all intents and purposes, as if they had been 
abiding and born within the realm of England. 

3. Resolved, That the taxation of the people by 
themselves or by persons chosen by themselves to 
represent them, who can only know what taxes th^ 

73 



Source Problems in United States History 

people are able to bear, and the easiest mode of 
raising them, and are equally affected by such taxes 
themselves, is the distinguishing characteristic of 
British freedom, and without which the ancient con- 
5 stitution cannot subsist. 

4. Resolvedy That his majesty's liege people of this 
most ancient colony have uninterruptedly enjoyed 
the right of being thus governed by their own As- 
sembly in the article of their taxes and internal 

10 police, and that the same hath never been forfeited, 
or any other way given up, but hath been constantly 
recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain. 

5. Resolved, therefore, That the General Assembly 
of this colony have the only and sole exclusive right 

15 and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the 
inhabitants of this colony; and that every attempt 
to vest such power in any person or persons what- 
soever, other than the General Assembly aforesaid, 
has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well 

20 as American freedom. 

6. Resolved, That his majesty's Hege people, the 
inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield 
obedience to any law or ordinance whatever, de- 
signed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them, 

25 other than the laws or ordinances of the General 
Assembly aforesaid. 

7. Resolved, That any person who shall, by speak- 
ing or writing, assert or maintain that any person 
or persons, other than the General Assembly of this 

74 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

colony, have any right or. power to impose or lay 
any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed 
an enemy to his majesty's colony. 
3. Principles and Acts of the Revolution in America. 
s H. Niles, editor, p. 457. [Resolutions adopted 

by the Stamp Act Congress, October 19, 1765.] 
ist. That his majesty's subjects in these colonies, 
owe the same allegiance to the crown of Great- 
Britain, that is owing from his subjects bom within 
10 the realm, and all due subordination to that august 
body, the parliament of Great-Britain 

2d. That his majesty's liege subjects in these 
colonies are entitled to all the inherent rights and 
privileges of his natural born subjects within the king- 
is dom of Great Britain. 

3d. That it is inseparably essential to the free- 
dom of a people, and the undoubted right of English- 
men, that no taxes should be imposed on them, but 
w4th their own consent, given personally, or by their 
20 representatives. 

4th. That the people of these colonies are not, and, 
from their local circumstances, cannot be, repre- 
sented in the house of commons in Great-Britain. 
5th. That the only representatives of the people 
25 of these colonies, are persons chosen therein, by them- 
selves; and that no taxes ever have been, or can be 
constitutionally imposed on them, but by their re- 
spective legislatures. 

6th. That all supplies to the crown, being free 

75 



Source Problems in United States History 

gifts of the people, it is unreasonable and incon- 
'Sistent with the principles and spirit of the British 
constitution, for the people of Great Britain to 
grant to his majesty the property of the colonists. 

5 7th. That trial by jury is the inherent and in- 
valuable right of every British subject in these 
colonies. 

8th. That the late act of parliament, entitled, 
An act for granting and applying certain stamp 

10 duties, and other duties in the British colonies and 
plantations in America, &c. by imposing taxes on 
the inhabitants of these, colonies, and the said act, 
and several other acts, by extending the jurisdiction 
of the courts of admiralty beyond its ancient limits, 

IS have a manifest tendency to subvert the rights and 
liberties of the colonists. 

4. Parliamentary History, Vol. XVI. [Debate in 
the House of Commons on the Address of 
thanks to the King, January, 1766.] 
20 Cols. 96, 97. 

Mr. Nugent, (afterwards Lord Clare), insisted, 
That the honour and dignity of the kingdom obliged 
us to compel the execution of the Stamp Act, ex- 
cept the right was acknowledged, and the repeal 
25 solicited as a favour. He computed the expence of 
the troops now employed in America for their de- 
fence, as he called it, to amount to nine pence in 
the pound of our land tax; while the produce of the 

76 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

Stamp-act would not raise a shilling a head on the 
inhabitants of America; but that a pepper-com, in 
acknowledgment of the right, was of more value, 
than millions without. He expatiated on the ex- 
5 treme ingratitude of the colonies; and concluded with 
charging the ministry with encouraging petitions 
to parliament, and instructions to members from 
trading and manufacturing towns, against the act. 
[Speech of William Pitt.] 

10 Col. 98. 

... It is a long time, Mr. Speaker, since I have at- 
tended in parliament. When the resolution was 
taken in the House to tax America, I was ill in bed. 
If I could have endured to have been carried in my 

15 bed, so great was the agitation of my mind for the 
consequences! I would have solicited some kind 
hand to have laid me down on this floor, to have 
borne my testimony against it. It is now an act 
that has passed; I would speak with decency of 

20 every act of this House, but I must beg the indul- 
gence of the House to speak of it with freedom. 

Cols. 99, 100. 

It is my opinion, that this kingdom has no right 
to lay a tax upon the colonies. At the same time, 
25 I assert the authority of this kingdom over the 
colonies, to be sovereign and supreme, in every cir- 
cumstance of government and legislation whatsoever. 
They are the subjects of this kingdom, equally en- 

n 



Source Problems in United States History 

titled with yourselves to all the natural rights of 
mankind and the peculiar privileges of Englishmen. 
Equally bound by its laws, and equally participat- 
ing of the constitution of this free country. The 

5 Americans are the sons, not the bastards, of 
England. Taxation is no part of the governing or 
legislative power. The taxes are a voluntary gift 
and grant of the Commons alone. In legislation 
the three estates of the realm are alike concerned, 

10 but the concurrence of the peers and the crown to 
a tax, is only necessary to close with the form of a 
law. The gift and grant is of the Commons alone. 
In ancient days, the crown, the barons and the clergy 
possessed the lands. In those days, the barons and 

IS the clergy gave and granted to the crown. They gave 
and granted what was their own. At present, since 
the discovery of America, and other circumstances 
permitting, the Commons are become the proprietors 
of the land. The crown has divested itself of its 

20 great estates. The church (God bless it) has but 
a pittance. The property of the Lords, compared 
with that of the Commons, is as a drop of water 
in the ocean: and this House represents those 
Commons, the proprietors of the lands; and those 

25 proprietors virtually represent the rest of the in- 
habitants. When, therefore, in this House we give 
and grant, we give and grant what is our own. But 
in an American tax, what do we do? We, your 
Majesty's Commons of Great Britain give and grant 

78 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

to your Majesty, what? Our own property? No. 
We give and grant to your Majesty, the property 
of your Majesty's commons of America. It is an 
absurdity in terms. 

s The distinction between legislation and taxation 
is essentially necessary to liberty. The Crown, the 
Peers, are equally legislative powers with the Com- 
mons. If taxation be a part of simple legislation, 
the Crown, the Peers, have rights in taxation as well 

10 as yourselves: rights which they will claim, which 
they will exercise, whenever the principle can be 
supported by power. 

There is an idea in some, that the colonies are 
virtually represented in this House. I would fain 

IS know by whom an American is represented here? 
Is he represented by any knight of the shire, in any 
county in this kingdom? Would to God that re- 
spectable representation was augmented to a greater 
number! Or will you tell him, that he is represented 

20 by any representative of a borough — a borough, 
which perhaps, its own representative never saw. 
This is what is called, 'the rotten part of the con- 
stitution.' It cannot continue the century; if it 
does not drop, it must be amputated. The idea of 

25 a virtual representation of America in this House, 
is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into 
the head of a man; it does not deserve a serious 
refutation. 

The Commons of America, represented in their 

79 



Source Problems in United States History 

several assemblies, have ever been in possession of 
the exercise of this, their constitutional right, of 
giving and granting their own money. They would 
have been slaves if they had not enjoyed it. At the 

s same time, this kingdom, as the supreme governing 
and legislative power, has always bound the colonies 
by her laws, by her regulations, and restrictions in 
trade, in navigation, in manufactures, in every- 
thing, except that of taking their money out of their 

10 pockets without their consent. 
[Speech of George Grenville.] 

Cols. lOI, 102. 

I cannot understand the difference between ex- 
ternal and internal taxes. They are the same in 

IS effect, and only differ in name. That this kingdom 
has the sovereign, the supreme legislative power over 
America, is granted. It cannot be denied; and 
taxation is a part of that sovereign power. It is 
one branch of the legislation. It is, it has been 

20 exercised, over those who are not, who were never 
represented. It is exercised over the India Com- 
pany, the merchants of London, the proprietors of 
the stocks, and over many great manufacturing 
towns. It was exercised over the palatinate of 

25 Chester, and the bishopric of Durham, before they 
sent any representatives to parliament. . . . Pro- 
tection and obedience are reciprocal. Great Britain 
protects America; America is bound to yield 
obedience. 

8o 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

[Speech of William Pitt.] 

Col. 105. 

... If the gentleman does not understand the 
difference between internal and external taxes, I 
5 cannot help it ; but there is a plain distinction be- 
tween taxes levied for the purposes of raising a 
revenue, and duties imposed for the regulation of 
trade, for the accommodation of the subject; al- 
though, in the consequences, some revenue might 
10 incidentally arise from the latter. 

[Examination of Benjamin Franklin in the House 
of Commons, January 28, 1766.] 

Col. 137- 

Q. What is your name, and place of abode? — 
15 A. Franklin, of Philadelphia. 

Do the Americans pay any considerable taxes 
among themselves? — Certainly many, and very 
heavy taxes. 

Col. 141. 
20 Did you ever hear the authority of parliament 
to make laws for America questioned till lately? — ■ 
The authority of parliament was allowed to be valid 
in all laws, except such as should lay internal taxes. 
It was never disputed in laying duties to regulate 
25 commerce. 

Col. 142. 

What will be the opinion of the Americans on 
those resolutions? — They will think them uncon- 
stitutional and unjust. 



Source Problems in United States History 

Was it an opinion in x\merica before 1763, that 
the parHament had no right to lay taxes and duties 
there? — I never heard any objection to the right 
of laying duties to regulate commerce; but a right 
5 to la}' internal taxes was never supposed to be in 
parliament, as we are not represented there. 

On what do you found your opinion, that the 
people in America made any such distinction? — I 
know that whenever the subject has occurred in 

10 conversation where I have been present, it has ap- 
peared to be the opinion of every one, that we could 
not be taxed in a parliament where we were not 
represented. But the payment of duties laid by 
act of parliament, as regulations of commerce, was 

IS never disputed. 

But can you name any act of assembly, or public 
act of any of your governments, that made such 
distinction? — I do not know that there was any; 
I think there was never an occasion to make any 

20 such act, till now that you have attempted to tax 
us; that has occasioned resolutions of assembly, de- 
claring the distinction, in which I think every assem- 
bly on the continent, and every member in ever^^ 
assembly, have been unanimous. 

2s Col. 144. 

You say that the colonies have always submitted 
to external taxes, and object to the right of parlia- 
ment only in laying internal taxes; now can you 
shew that there is any land of difference between 

82 



The Preliminaries of the Revohition 

the two taxes to the colony on which they may be 
laid? — I think the difference is very great. An ex- 
ternal tax is a duty laid on commodities imported; 
that duty is added to the first cost, and other charges 
5 on the commodity, and when it is offered to sale, 
makes a part of the price. If the people do not 
like it at that price, they refuse it; they are not 
obliged to pay it. But an internal tax is forced 
from the people without their consent, if not 

10 laid by their own representatives. The Stamp 
Act says, we shall have no commerce, make no 
exchange of property with each other, neither 
purchase nor grant, nor recover debts; we shall 
neither marry nor make our wills, unless we pay 

IS such sums, and thus it is intended to extort our 
money from us, or ruin us by the consequences 
of refusing to pay it. 

But supposing the internal [external] tax or duty 
to be laid on the necessaries of life imported into 

20 your colony, will not that be the same thing in 
its effects as an internal tax?^ — I do not know 
a single article imported into the northern colo- 
nies, but what they can either do without or make 
themselves. 

• •••••< 

2s Col. 147. 

Did the Americans ever dispute the controuling 
power of parliament to regulate commerce? — No. 
Can any thing less than a military force carry 

83 



Source Problems in United States History 

the Stamp Act into execution' — I do not see how a 
military" force can be appHed to that purpose. 

Cols. 148, 149. 

You say they do not object to the right of parlia- 

5 ment, in laying duties on goods to be paid on their 
importation; now, is there any kind of difference 
between a duty on the importation of goods and an 
excise on their consumption? — Yes; a very material 
one; an excise, for the reasons I have just men- 

10 tioned, they think you can have no right to lay 
within their country. But the sea is yours; you 

. maintain, by your fleets, the safety of navigation 
in it, and keep it clear of pirates; you may have 
therefore a natural and equitable right to some 

15 toll or duty on merchandizes carried through that 
part of your dominions, towards defraying the ex- 
pence you are at in ships to maintain the safety of 
that carriage. 

Cols. 158, 159. 
20 Does the distinction between internal and ex- 
ternal taxes exist in the words of the charter? — No, 
I believe not. 

Then may they not, by the same interpretation, 

object to the parliament's right of external taxa- 

25 tioni* — They never have hitherto. Many arguments 

have been lately used here to shew them that there 

is no difference, and that if you have no right to 



The Preliminaries of the Revohition 

tax them intenially, you have none to tax them 
externally, or make any other law to bind them. 
At present they do not reason so, but in time they 
may possibly be convinced by these arguments. 
5 Do not the resolutions of the Pennsylvania as- 
semblies say, all taxes? — ^If they do, they mean only 
internal taxes; the same words have not always 
the same meaning here and in the colonies. By 
taxes they mean internal taxes ; by duties they mean 
10 customs; these are the ideas of the language. 

Have you not seen the resolutions of the Massa- 
chusett's Bay assembly? — I have. 

Do they not say, that neither external nor internal 
taxes can be laid on them by parliament? — I don't 
IS know that they do; I believe not. 

Debate in the House of Lords, February, 1766. 

[Speech of Lord Lyttelton.] 

Col. 167. 

. . . The last great maxim of this and every other 
20 free government is, that 'No subject is bound by 
any law to which he is not actually or virtually 
consenting.' 

If the colonies are subjects of Great Britain, they 
are represented and consent to all statutes. 
25 But it is said they will not submit to the Stamp 
Act as it lays an internal tax: if this be admitted, 
the same reasoning extends to all acts of parliament. 
The Americans will find themselves crampt by the 
Act of Navigation, and oppose that too. 

85 



Source Problems in United States History 

The Americans themselves make no distinction 
between external and internal taxes. M. Otis, their 
champion, scouts such a distinction, and the assem- 
bly shewed they were not displeased with him, by 
s making him their representative at the congress of 
the states general of America. 

The only question before your lordships is, 
whether the American colonies are a part of the 
dominions of the crown of Great Britain? If not, 
lo the parliament has no jurisdiction, if they are, as 
many statutes have declared them to be, they must 
be proper objects of our legislature : and by declaring 
them exempt from one statute or law, you declare 
them no longer subjects of Great Britain, and make 
15 them small independent communities not entitled 
to your protection. 

[Speech of Lord Mansfield.] 

Col. 175. 

. . . But as a distinction has been taken between 

20 the power of laying taxes and making laws, I must 

declare, that after the most diligent searches on this 

head, I cannot find any distinction or difference 

whatever. 

[Speech of Lord Camden.] 
25 Cols. 178, 180. 

. . . My position is this — I repeat it — I will main- 
tain it to my last hour, — ^taxation and representation 
are inseparable; — this position is founded on the 
laws of nature; it is more, it is itself an eternal law 

86 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

of nature; for whatever is a man's own, is absolutely 
his own; no man hath a right to take it from him 
without his consent, either expressed by himself or 
representative; whoever attempts to do it, at- 
5 tempts an injury; whoever does it, commits a rob- 
bery; he throws down and destroys the distinction 
between liberty and slavery. Taxation and repre- 
sentation are coeval with and essential to this con- 
stitution. 

10 In short, my lords, from the whole of our history, 
from the earliest period, you will find that taxation 
and representation were always united; so true are 
the words of that consummate reasoner and politician 
Mr. Locke. I before alluded to his book; I have 

IS again consulted him; and finding what he writes 
so applicable to the subject in hand, and so much 
in favour of my sentiments, I beg your lordships' 
leave to read a little of this book. 

*'The supreme power cannot take from any man, 

20 any part of his property, without his own consent;" 
and B. 2. p. 136-139, particularly 140. Such are 
the words of this great man, and which are well 
worth your serious attention. His principles are 
drawn from the heart of our constitution, which he 

25 thoroughly understood, and will last as long as that 
shall last; and, to his immortal honour, I know not 
to what, under providence, the Revolution and all 
its happy effects, are more owing, than to the prin- 

87 



Source Problems in United States History 

ciples of government laid down by Mr. Locke. For 
these reasons, my lords, I can never give my assent 
to any bill for taxing the American colonies, while 
they remain unrepresented; for as to the distinction 

5 of a virtual representation, it is so absurd as not to 
deserve an answer; I therefore pass it over with 
contempt. 

5. The Gentleman' s Magazine and Historical Chron- 
icle, Vol. XXXVIII (1768). 

10 Pages 269-270. 

Mr. Urban, — The opposition of the colonies to 
the new method of taxation will probably bring the 
subject of virtual Representation again before the 
public. As I have never yet seen this kind of 

15 representation precisely stated, give me leave to 
communicate to the public, thro' the channel of 
your Magazine, my Idea of it, in which you will find 
no essential difference between virtual and actual 
representation in England; but a very striking dis- 

20 tinction between these, and no representation at all 
of America. 

My notion of Virtual Representation is this, A 
numerous society being willing to unite themselves 
under the same form of government, and to be 

25 subject to the same laws, consent, for convenience 
sake, that the whole in a national assembly shall be 
represented by a part; and, to avoid confusion in 
choosing that part, they farther consent that certain 
classes among them shall have the privilege of elect - 

88 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

ing the members that are to compose it; but at the 
same time they stipulate, that as well those who 
represent as those who are represented; and those 
also who have not the privilege of electing in 
5 common with those who have; all shall share alike 
in the advantages resulting from the deliberations 
of the national assembly; and all shall contribute 
alike, in proportion to their respective situations and 
circumstances, to the necessary expences of govem- 

10 ment. 

Thus, Mr. Urban, you see, that, according to this 
system, those who represent and those who are rep- 
resented, and those who elect, and those who do 
not elect the representatives are all entitled to the 

15 same benefits, and are subject alike to the same 
taxations, every other circumstance but that of the 
privilege of election being similar. And hence it 
follows that virtual representation in Great Britain 
is in effect the same as actual representation; the 

20 laws enacted for the government of the whole, af- 
fecting the whole equally without the least distinc- 
tion — To illustrate this still more clearly; 

Birmingham is said not to be actually represented 
because, though a populous place, and a great manu- 

25 facturing town, it sends no members to parliament; 
yet the inhabitants of Birmingham enjoy in every 
respect the same freedom and the same national 
advantages that the inhabitants of the towns do 
that are represented. No law was ever made that 

89 



Source Problems in United States History 

affected the property of the people of Birmingham 
but what affected the property of the people in like 
circumstances in every other part of the kingdom: 
so that Birmingham and every other town in Eng- 

5 land that sends no members to parliament, is to 
all intents and purposes virtually represented; be- 
cause the representatives of the towns that elect 
make the same laws for those who do not elect, as 
for those who do. 

lo Were it otherwise, and those who are actually 
represented were to be eased in any tax, by exempt- 
ing them from the payment of it, and laying the 
burden upon those who are only virtually repre- 
sented, would not the virtually represented part of 

15 the people take the alarm, and protest against the 
acts of such a partial representation? Were a heavy 
tax, for instance, to be laid upon iron manufactured 
in the town of Birmingham, because virtually rep- 
resented only; and a premium granted upon the 

20 same iron manufactured in Stafford because actually 
represented, would the people in Birmingham submit 
quietly to such an unjust distinction? 

This, in my opinion, is exactly the case of the 
colonies. The representatives of the people of Eng- 

25 land lay a tax upon the Americans, to which neither 
they themselves nor their constituents, pay any 
part; and they may, by the same authority, when- 
ever the colonies are in a capacity of bearing it, lay 
the weight of all the taxes for the support of govern- 

90 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

ment, and for the payment of the interest and prin- 
cipal of the national debt, upon the Americans, in ease 
of themselves and the people whom they represent; 
and they may at the same time exclude the Ameri- 

5 cans from whatever advantages in point of commerce 
and manufactures they may apprehend will clash 
with the interest of themselves and their constituents ; 
hence I think it is self-evident that the virtual repre- 
sentation which it is contended the American is in 

10 possession of, is very different from the virtual 
representation which the Birmingham man possesses ; 
because the virtual representative of the American, 
can put his hand in the American's pocket, and take 
out what sum he pleases, and he may at the same 

IS time clog him with whatever incapacity he pleases, 
without aft'ecting himself in either of these cases; 
but the virtual representative of the Birmingham 
man must contribute shilling for shilling with the 
Birmingham man, and must likewise be himself 

20 subject, in like circumstances, to all the incapacities 
which he may think fit to impose upon him. 

Were not this the case, would the numerous body 
of virtually represented inhabitants of this opulent 
kingdom, submit to be governed by the contemptible 

25 number of the actually represented inhabitants of 
it? It is unreasonable to think they would. But 
as the case stands, it were, perhaps, better that the 
numbers of the actually represented were still fewer 
than they are, than that they should be increased 

91 



Source Problems in United States History 

by electors like the present, whom experience has 
shewn, to be susceptible of every species of venality. 

I am, Sir, &c. D. Y. 
6. Massachusetts State Papers. [Letter of the Mas- 
5 sachusetts House to the Earl of Shelburne, 

January 15, 1768.] 
Page 138. 

There are, my Lord, fundamental rules of the 
constitution, which it is humbly presumed, neither 
10 the supreme legislative nor the supreme executive 
can alter. In all free states, the constitution is 
fixed; it is from thence, that the legislative derives 
its authority; therefore it cannot change the con- 
stitution without destroying its own foundation. 
15 If, then, the constitution of Great Britain is the 
common right of all British subjects, it is humbly 
referred to your Lordship's judgment, whether the 
supreme legislative of the empire may rightly leap the 
bounds of it, in the exercise of power over the sub- 
20 jects in America, any more than over those in Britain. 
Writings of Samuel Adams y I. [Letter of the 
Massachusetts House to the Marquis of Rocking- 
ham, January 22, 1768.] 
Pages 1 70-1 71. 
25 My Lord, the superintending power of that high 
court over all his Majesty's subjects in the empire, 
and in all cases which can consist with the funda- 
mental rules of the constitution, was never ques- 
tioned in this province, nor, as the House conceive, 

92 



The Preliminaries of the Revokitioil 

in any other. But, in all free states, the constitu- 
tion is fixed; it is from thence, that the supreme 
legislative, as well as the supreme executive derives 
its authority. Neither, then, can break through 
s the fundamental rules of the constitution, without 
destroying their own foundation. 

[Letter of the Massachusetts House to Lord Cam- 
den, January 29, 1768.] 
Page 174. 
10 If in all free states, the constitution is fixed, and 
the supreme legislative power of the nation, from 
thence derives its authority; can that power over- 
leap the bounds of the constitution, without sub- 
verting its own foundation? If the remotest sub- 
is jects, are bound by the ties of allegiance, which this 
people and their forefathers have ever acknowledged ; 
are they not by the rules of equity, intitled to all 
rights of that constitution, which ascertains and 
limits both sovereignty and allegiance? If it is an 
20 essential unalterable right in nature, ingrafted into 
the British constitution as a fundamental law, and 
ever held sacred and irrevocable by the subjects 
within the realm, and that what is a man's own 
is absolutely his own; and that no man hath a 
25 right to take it from him without his consent; may 
not the subjects of this province, with a decent firm- 
ness, which has always distinguished the happy sub- 
jects of Britain, plead and maintain this natural 
constitutional right? 

93 



Source Problems in United States History 

Massachusetts State Papers. [Extract from Cir- 
cular Letter from the Massachusetts House to 
speakers of other Houses of Representatives. Feb- 
ruary II, 1768.] 

5 Page 134. 

The House have humbly represented to the min- 
istry, their own sentiments that His Majesty's high 
court of Parliament is the supreme legislative power 
over the whole Empire; that in all free states the 

10 constitution is fixed, and as the supreme legislative 
derives its power and authority from the constitu- 
tion, it cannot overleap the bounds of it, without 
destroying its own foundation; that the constitu- 
tion ascertains and limits both sovereignty and 

IS allegiance, and, therefore. His Majesty's American 
subjects, who acknowledge themselves bound by the 
ties of allegiance, have an equitable claim to the 
full enjoyment of the fundamental rules of the Brit- 
ish Constitution. ... 

20 7. The Writings of John Dickinson. [Letters from 
a Farmer, 1767, 1768.] 
Page 312. 

The parliament unquestionably possesses a legal 
authority to regulate the trade of Great-Britain, 

25 and all her colonies. Such an authority is essen- 
tial to the relation between a mother country and 
her colonies; and necessary for the comimon good of 
all. He, who considers these provinces as states 
distinct from the British Empire, has very slender 

94 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

notions of justice, or of their interests. We are but 
parts of a whole; and therefore there must exist a 
power somewhere to preside, and preserve the con- 
nection in due order. This power is lodged in the 

5 parliament; and we are as much dependent on 
Great Britain, as a perfectly free people can be on 
another. 

I have looked over every statute relating to these 
cc Ionics, from their first settlement to this time; 

lo and I find every one of them founded on this prin- 
ciple, till the St amp- Act administration. All before, 
are calculated to regulate trade, and preserve or 
promote a mutually beneficial intercourse between 
the several constituent parts of the empire; and 

IS though many of them imposed duties on trade, yet 
those duties were always imposed with design to 
restrain the commerce of one part, that was injurious 
to another, and thus to promote the general welfare. 
The raising a revenue thereby was never in- 

20 tended. . . . 

Pages 320, 321. 

Our great advocate, Mr. Pitt, in his speeches on 
the debate concerning the repeal of the Stamp-Act, 
acknowledged, that Great-Britain could restrain our 
25 manufactures. His words are these — "This king- 
dom, as the supreme governing and legislative power, 
has always bound the colonies by her regulations 
and restrictions in trade, in navigation, in manu- 

95 



Source Problems in United States History 

factures — in every thing, except that of taking their 
money out of their pockets, without their consent." 
Again he says, "We may bind their trade, confine 
their manufactures, and exercise every power what- 
5 ever except that of taking their money out of their 
pockets, without their consent." 

Here then, my dear countrymen, rouse yourselves, 
and behold the ruin hanging over your heads. If 
you once admit, that Great-Britain may lay duties 
lo upon her export ations to us, for the purpose of levy- 
ing money on us only, she then will have nothing to 
do, but to lay those duties on the articles which she 
prohibits us to manufacture — and the tragedy of 
American liberty is finished. We have been pro- 
is hibited from procuring manufactures, in all cases, 
any where but from Great-Britain (excepting linens, 
which we are permitted to import directly from Ire- 
land). We have been prohibited, in some cases, 
from manufacturing for ourselves; and may be 
20 prohibited in others. We are therefore exactly in 
the situation of a city besieged, which is surrounded 
by the works of the besiegers in every part but one. 
If that is closed up, no step can be taken, but to 
surrender at discretion. If Great-Britain can order 
25 us to come to her for necessaries we want, and can 
order us to pay what taxes she pleases before we 
take them away, or when we land them here, we 
are as abject slaves as France and Poland can shew 
in wooden shoes, and with uncombed hair. 

96 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

Page 328. 

My dear Countrymen, — An objection, I hear, 
has been made against my second letter, which I 
would willingly clear up before I proceed. ''There 
5 is," say these objectors, ''a material difference be- 
tween the Stamp-Act and the late Act for laying a 
duty on paper, &c that justifies the conduct of 
those who opposed the former, and yet are willing 
to submit to the latter. The duties imposed by 
to the Stamp-Act were internal taxes; but the present 
are external, and therefore the Parliament may 
have a right to impose them." 

To this I answer, with a total denial of the power 
of parliament to lay upon these colonies any "tax" 
15 whatever. 

This point, being so important to this, and to 
succeeding generations, I wish to be clearly under- 
stood. 

To the word ''tax," I annex that meaning which 
20 the constitution and history of England require to 
be annexed to it ; that is — that it is an imposition on 
the subject, for the sole purpose of levying money. 

Page 332. 

This language is clear and important. A "tax" 

25 means an imposition to raise money. Such persons 

therefore as speak of internal and external "taxes," 

I pray may pardon me, if I object to that expression, 

as applied to the privileges and interests of these 

97 



Source Problems in United States History 

colonies. There may be internal and external im- 
positions, founded on different principles, and hav- 
ing different tendencies, every "tax" being an im- 
position, tho' every imposition is not a "tax." But 
5 all taxes are founded on , the same principles ; and 
have the same tendency. 
Pages, 348, 349. 

... In my opinion, there is ,no privilege these 
colonies claim, which they ought in duty and pru- 

10 dence more earnestly to maintain and defend, than 
the authority of the British parliament to regulate 
the trade of all her dominions. Without this au- 
thority, the benefits she enjoys from our commerce, 
must be lost to her: The blessings we enjoy from our 

IS dependence upon her, must be lost to us. Her 
strength must decay; her glory vanish; and she 
cannot suffer without our partaking in her misfor- 
tune. Let us therefore cherish her interests as our 
own, and give her every thing, that it becomes 

20 freemen to give or to receive.^ 

^ Some of the difficulties in grasping the problems of the time may 
be seen from Franklin's comments after reading portions of the 
Farmer's Letters: 

"I am not yet master of the idea these and the New England 
25 writers have of the relation between Britain and her colonies. 

I know not what the Boston people mean by the 'subordination ' 
they acknowledge in their Assembly to Parliament, while they 
deny its powers to make laws for them, nor what bounds the 
Farmer sets to the power he -acknowledges in Parliament to 
30 'regulate the trade of the colonies,' it being difficult to draw 

lines between duties for regulation and those for revenue; and 
if the Parliament is to be the judge, it seems to me that estab- 
lishing such principles of distinction will amount to little." 
98 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

8. Massachusetts State Papers.^ [Speech of Gov- 
ernor Hutchinson to the Council and the 
House.] 
Page 337. 

5 ... When our predecessors first took possession 
of this plantation, or colony, under a grant and 
charter from the Crown of England, it was their 
sense, and it was the sense of the kingdom, that 
they were to remain subject to the supreme authority 

10 of Parliament. This appears from the charter itself, 
and from other irresistible evidence. This supreme 
authority has, from time to time, been exercised 
by Parliament, and submitted to by the colony, and 
hath been, in the most express terms, acknowledged 

15 by the Legislature, and, except about the time of 
the anarchy and confusion in England, which pre- 
ceded the restoration of King Charles the Second, 
I have not discovered that it has been called in 
question, even by private or particular persons, 

-'o until within seven or eight years last past. Our 
provincial or local laws have, in numerous instances, 
had relation to acts of Parliament, made to respect 
the plantations in general, and this colony in par- 

^ This speech of the Governor was made in 1773. He evidently 
25 believed that it was wise to enter upon a full discussion of the power 
of Parliament and expected to be able to rout the leaders that 
denied that power. The source is valuable, because it shows so 
clearly at least three different positions — that of the Governor, that 
of the Council, and that of the House. Probably no other single 
30 body of documents so cogently and ably presents the conflicting 
theories. 

8 99 



Source Problems in United States History 

ticular, and in our Executive Courts, both Juries 
and Judges have, to all intents and purposes, con- 
sidered such acts as part of our rule of law. 

So much, however, of the spirit of liberty breathes 
5 through all parts of the English constitution, that, 
although from the nature of government, there 
must be one supreme authority over the whole, yet 
this constitution will admit of subordinate powers 
with Legislative and Executive authority, greater 

10 or less, according to local and other circumstances. 
Thus we see a variety of corporations formed within 
the kingdom, with powers to make and execute such 
by-laws as are for their immediate use and benefit, 
the members of such corporations still remaining 

IS subject to the general laws of the kingdom. We 
see also governments established in the plantations, 
which, from their separate and remote situation, re- 
quire more general and extensive powers of legisla- 
tion within themselves, than those formed within 

20 the kingdom, but subject, nevertheless, to all such 
laws of the kingdom as immediately respect them, 
or are designed to extend to them; and, accordingly, 
we, in this province have, from the first settlement 
of it, been left to the exercise of our Legislative and 

25 Executive powers. Parliament occasionally, though 
rarely, interposing, as in its wisdom has been judged 
necessary. 



lOO 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

Page 338. 

... At length the constitution has been called in 
question, and the authority of the Parliament of 
Great Britain to make and establish laws for the 
5 inhabitants of this province has been, by many, 
denied. What was at first whispered with caution, 
was soon after openly asserted in print; and, of 
late, a number of inhabitants, in several of the prin- 
cipal towns in the province, having assembled to- 

10 gether in their respective towns, and have [having] 
assumed the name of legal town meetings, have 
passed resolves, which they have ordered to be 
placed upon their town records, and caused to be 
printed and published in pamphlets and newspapers. 

IS Pages 338, 339. 

... I know of no arguments, founded in reason, 
which will be sufficient to support these principles, 
or to justify the measures taken in consequence of 
them. It has been urged, that the sole power of 

20 making laws is granted, by charter, to a Legislature 
established in the province, consisting of the King, 
by his Representative the Governor, the Council, and 
the House of Representatives; that, by this charter, 
there are likewise granted, or assured to the in- 

25 habitants of the province, all the liberties and im- 
munities of free and natural subjects, to all intents, 
constructions and purposes whatsoever, as if they 
had been born within the realms of England; that 
it is part of the liberties of English subjects, which 

lOl 



Source Problems in United States History 

has its foundation in nature, to be governed by laws 
made by their consent in person, or by their repre- 
sentative; that the subjects in this province are 
not, and cannot be represented in the Parliament of 
5 Great Britain, and, consequently, the acts of that 
Parliament cannot be binding upon them. 

I do not find, gentlemen, in the charter, such an 
expression as sole power, or any words which import 
it. The General Court has, by charter, full power 

10 to make such laws, as are not repugnant to the laws 
of England. A favorable construction has been put 
upon this clause, when it has been allowed to intend 
such laws of England only, as are expressly declared 
to respect us. Surely then this is, by charter, a 

15 reserve of power and authority to Parliament to 
bind us by such laws, at least, as are made expressly 
to refer to us, and consequently, is a limitation of the 
power given to the General Court. 

[The Governor insists that the charter in securing the 
20 Colonists the rights of Englishmen does not intend to 
declare that they are to be exempt from acts of Parlia- 
ment, but only that their place of abode was to be part 
of the dominions.] 

Pages 339-40. 
25 They who claim' exemption from acts of Parlia- 
ment by virtue of their rights as Englishmen, should 
consider that it is impossible the rights of English 
subjects should be the same, in every respect, in all 
parts of the dominions. It is one of their rights as 

102 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

English subjects, to be governed by laws made by 
persons, in whose election they have, from time to 
time, a voice ; they remove from the kingdom, where, 
perhaps, they were in the full exercise of this right, 

5 to the plantations, where it cannot be exercised, or 
where the exercise of it would be of no benefit to 
them. Does it follow that the government, by 
their removal from one part of the dominions to 
another, loses its authority over that part to which 

10 they remove, and that they are freed from the sub- 
jection they were under before; or do they expect 
that government should relinquish its authority be- 
cause they cannot enjoy this particular right ? Will 
it not rather be said, that by this, their voluntary 

15 removal, they have relinquished for a time at least, 
one of the rights of an English subject, which they 
might, if they pleased, have continued to enjoy, and 
may again enjoy, whensoever they will return to the 
place where it can be exercised? 

20 If what I have said shall not be sufficient to satis- 
fy such as object to the supreme authority of Parlia- 
ment over the plantations, there may something 
further be added to induce them to an acknowledg- 
ment of it, which, I think, will well deserve their 

25 consideration. I know of no line that can be drawn 
between the supreme authority of Parliament and 
the total independence of the colonies: it is impos- 
sible there should be two independent Legislatures 

103 



Source Problems in United States History 

in one and the same state; for, although there may 
be one head, the King, yet the two Legislative bodies 
will make two governments as distinct as the king- 
doms of England and Scotland before the union. . . . 
s [Answer of the Council to the speech of the Gov- 
ernor, of the sixth of January . . . January 25, 1773.] 

[The Council refers to the Governor's statement that 
the colonists were "to remain subject to the supreme 
authority of Parliament," and then proceeds as follows:] 

10 Pages 344, 345. 

... In order to a right conception of this matter, 
it is necessary to guard against any improper idea 
of the term supreme authority. In your idea of it, 
your Excellency seems to include unlimited authori- 

15 ty; for, you are pleased to say, that you know of no 
line which can be drawn between the supreme 
authority of Parliament, and the real independence 
of the colonies. But if no such line can be 'drawn, 
a denial of that authority, in any instance whatever, 

20 implies and amounts to a declaration of total inde- 
pendence. But if supreme authority, includes un- 
limited authority, the subjects of it are emphatically 
slaves; and equally so, whether residing in the 
colonies, or Great Britain. And, indeed, in this re- 

25 spect, all the nations on earth, among whom govern- 
ment exists in any of its forms, would be alike con- 
ditioned, excepting so far as the mere grace and 
favor of their Governors might make a difference, 

104 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

for from the nature of government there must be, 
as your Excellency has observed, one supreme au- 
thority over the whole. 

We cannot think, that when our predecessors took 
5 possession of this colony, it was their sense, or the 
sense of the kingdom, that they were to remain sub- 
ject to the supreme authority of Parliament in this 
idea of it. Nor can we find, that this appears from 
the charter; or, that such authority has ever been 

10 exercised by Parliament, submitted to by the colony, 
or acknowledged by the Legislature. 

Supreme, or unlimited authority, can with fitness, 
belong only to the Sovereign of the universe; and 
that fitness is derived from the perfection of his 

15 nature. To such authority, directed by infinite 
wisdom and infinite goodness, is due both active and 
passive obedience; which, as it constitutes the hap- 
piness of rational creatures, should, with cheerful- 
ness, and from choice, be unlimitedly paid by them. 

20 But, this, can be said with truth, of no other au- 
thority whatever. If, then, from the nature and 
end of government, the supreme authority of every 
government is limited, the supreme authority of 
Pariiament must be Hmited; and the inquiry will 

25 be, what are the limits of that authority, with re- 
gard to this colony? To fix them with precision, to 
determine the exact lines of right and wrong in this 
case, as in some others, is difficult; and we have not 
the presumption to attempt it. But we humbly 

105 



Source Problems in United States History 



^ 



hope, that, as we are personally and relatively, in our 

public and private capacities, for ourselves, for the 

whole province, and posterity, so deeply interested 

in this important subject, it will not be deemed 

s arrogance to give some general sentiments upon it, 

especially as your Excellency's speech has made it 

absolutely necessary. 

Pages 346, 347. 

The grant of power to the General Court to make 

10 laws, runs thus — "full power and authority, from 
time to time, to make and ordain, and establish, 
all manner of wholesome and reasonable laws, orders, 
statutes and ordinances, directions and instructions, 
either with penalties or without, so as the same be 

IS not repugnant or contrary to the laws of this our 
realm of England, as they shall judge to be for the 
good and welfare of our said province." We hum- 
bly conceive an inference very different from your 
Excellency's, and a very just one too, may be drawn 

20 from this clause, if attention be given to the de- 
scription of the orders and laws that were to be 
made. They were to be wholesome, reasonable, and 
for the good and welfare of the province; and in 
order that they might be so, it is provided, that 

25 they be not repugnant or contrary to the laws of 
the realm, which were then in being; by which 
proviso, all the liberties and immunities of free and 
natural subjects within the realm, were more effect- 
ually secured to the inhabitants of the province, 

J 06 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

agreeable to another clause in the charter, whereby 
those liberties and immunities are expressly granted 
to them; and accordingly, the power of the General 
Court is so far limited, that they shall not make 
5 orders and laws to take away or diminish those 
liberties and immunities. 

Page .349. 

Your Excellency next observes, ''that it is im- 
possible the rights of English subjects should be 

10 the same in every respect, in all parts of the do- 
minions," and instances in the right of ''being gov- 
erned by laws made by persons, in whose election 
they have a voice." When "they remove from the 
kingdom to the plantations, where it cannot be en- 

15 joyed," you ask, "will it not be said, by this volun- 
tary removal, they have relinquished, for a time at 
least, one of the rights of an English subject, which 
they might, if they pleased, have continued to en- 
joy, and may again enjoy, whenever they will return 

20 to the place where it can be exercised?" 

When English subjects remove from the kingdom 
to the plantations, with their property, they not only 
relinquish that right de facto, but it ought to cease 
in the kingdom de jure. But it does not from thence 

25 follow, that they relinquish that right in reference 
to the plantation or colony, to which they remove. 
On the contrary, having become inhabitants of that 
colony, and qualified according to the laws of it, 

107 



Source Problems In United States History 

they can exercise that right, equally with the other 
inhabitants of it. And their right, on like conditions, 
will travel with them through all the colonies, 
wherein a Legislature, similar to that of the king- 
5 dom, is established. And therefore, in this respect, 
and, we suppose, in all other essential respects, it is 
• not impossible the rights of English subjects should 
be the same in all parts of the dominions, under a like 
form of Legislature. 

10 [Answer of the House of Representatives to the 
speech of the Governor, of the sixth of January . . . 
January 26, 17 73-] 
Page 352. 
You are pleased to say, that, ''when our prede- 

15 cessors first took possession of this plantation, or 
colony, under a grant and charter from the Crown 
of England, it was their sense, and it was the sense 
of the kingdom, that they were to remain subject 
to the supreme authority of Parliament;" whereby 

20 we understand your Excellency to mean, in the sense 
of the declaratory act of Parliament afore mentioned, 
in all cases whatever. And, indeed, it is difficult, if 
possible, to draw a line of distinction between the 
universal authority of Parliament over the colonies, 

25 and no authority at all. It is, therefore, necessary 
for us to inquire how it appears, for your Excellency 
has not shown it to us, that when, or at the time 
that our predecessors took possession of this plan- 
tation, or colony, under a grant and charter from 

108 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

the Crown of England, it was their sense, and 
the sense of the kingdom, that they were to re- 
main subject to the authority of Parliament. In 
making this inquiry, we shall, according to your 
s Excellency's recommendation, treat the subject 
with calmness and candor, and also with a due 
regard to truth. 

Page 354. 

We have brought the first American charters into 

10 view, and the state of the country when they were 
granted, to show, that the right of disposing of the 
lands was, in the opinion of those times, vested 
solely in the Crown; that the several charters con- 
veyed to the grantees, who should settle upon the 

15 territories therein granted, all the powers necessary 
to constitute them free and distinct states ; and that 
the fundamental laws of the English constitution 
should be the certain and established rule of legis- 
lation, to which, the laws to be made in the several 

20 colonies, were to be, as nearly as conveniently might 
be, conformable, or similar, which was the true 
intent and import of the words, *'not repugnant to 
the laws of England," "consonant to reason," and 
other variant expressions in the different charters. 

25 And we would add, that the King, in some of the 
charters, reserves the right to judge of the con- 
sonance and similarity of their laws with the Eng- 
lish constitution, to himself, and not to the Parlia- 

109 



Source Problems in United States History 

ment; and, in consequence thereof, to affirm, or 
within a limited time, disallow them. 



Page 356. 

Your Excellency says, "it appears from the char- 

5 ter itself, to have been the sense of our predecessors, 
who first took possession of this plantation, or colony, 
that they were to remain subject to the authority 
of Parliament." You have not been pleased to 
point out to us, how this appears from the charter, 

10 unless it be in the observation you make on the 
above mentioned clause, viz.: "that a favorable 
construction has been put upon this clause, when 
it has been allowed to intend such laws of England 
only, as are expressly made to respect us," which 

IS you say, "is by charter, a reserve of power and 
authority to Parliament, to bind us by such laws, 
at least, as are made expressly to refer to us, and 
consequently is a limitation of the power given to 
the General Court." But, we would still recur to 

20 the charter itself, and ask your Excellency, how 
this appears, from thence, to have been the sense 
of our predecessors.'^ Is any reservation of power 
and authority to Parliament thus to bind us, ex- 
pressed or implied in the charter? It is evident, 

25 that King Charles the I. the very Prince who 
granted it, as well as his predecessor, had no such 
idea of the supreme authority of Parliament over 
the colony, from their declarations before recited. 

no 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

Your Excellency will then allow us, further to ask, 
by what authority, in reason or equity, the Parlia- 
ment can enforce a construction so unfavorable to 
us. 

5 Pages 363, 364. 

Your Excellency tells us, "you know of no line 
that can be drawn between the supreme authority 
of Parliament and the total independence of the 
colonies." If there be no such line, the consequence 

10 is, either that the colonies are the vassals of the 
Parliament, or that they are totally independent. As 
it cannot be supposed to have been the intention of 
the parties in the compact, that we should be reduced 
to a state of vassalage, the conclusion is, that it was 

IS their sense, that we were thus independent. "It is 
impossible," your Excellency says, "that there should 
be two independent Legislatures in one and the 
same state." May we not then further conclude, 
that it was their sense, that the colonies were, by 

20 their charters, made distinct states from the mother 
country? Your Excellency adds, "for although 
there may be but one head, the King, yet the two 
Legislative bodies will make two governments as 
distinct as the kingdoms of England and Scotland, 

25 before the union." Very true, may it please your 
Excellency; and if they interfere not with each 
other, what hinders, but that being united in one 
head and common Sovereign, they may live happily 



Source Problems in United States History 

in that connection, and mutually support and pro- 
tect each other? Notwithstanding all the terrors 
which your Excellency has pictured to us as the 
effects of a total independence, there is more reason 
s to dread the consequences of absolute uncontroled 
power, whether of a nation or a monarch, than those 
of a total independence. 

Page 364. 

If your Excellency expects to have the line of 
10 distinction between the supreme authority of Parlia- 
ment, and the total independence of the colonies 
drawn by us, we would say it would be an arduous 
undertaking, and of very great importance to all 
the other colonies; and therefor, could we conceive 
IS of such a line, we should be unwilling to propose it, 
without their consent in Congress. 

[Speech of the Governor to both houses, February 
16, I773-] 



Page 369. 
20 Gentlemen of the Council, — I will only observe, 
that your attempts to draw a line as the limits of 
the supreme authority in government, by distin- 
guishing some natural rights, as more peculiarly 
exempt from such authority than the rest, rather 
25 tend to evince the impracticability of drawing such 
a line; and, that some parts of your answer seem 

112 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

to infer a supremacy in the province, at the same 
time that you acknowledge the supremacy of Par- 
liament; for otherwise, the rights of the subjects 
cannot be the same in all essential respects, as you 
5 suppose them to be, in all parts of the dominions, 
"under a like form of Legislature." 

• •••••• 

Page 370. 

Gentlemen of the House of Representatives, — 
. . . Let me then observe to you, that as English sub- 

10 jects, and agreeable to the doctrine of feudal tenure, 
all our lands and tenements are held mediately, or 
immediately of the Crown, and although the pos- 
session and use, or profits, be in the subject, there 
still remains a dominion in the Crown. When any 

15 new countries are discovered by English subjects, 
according to the general law and usage of nations, 
they become part of the state, and, according to the 
feudal system, the lordship or dominion, is in the 
Crown ; and a right accrues of disposing of such ter- 

20 ritories, under such tenure, or for such services to 
be performed, as the Crown shall judge proper; and 
whensoever any part of such territories, by grant 
from the Crown, becomes the possession or property 
of private persons, such persons, thus holding, under 

25 the Crown of England, remain, or become subjects 
of England, to all intents and purposes, as fully, 
as if any of the royal manors, forests, or other terri- 
tory, within the realm, had been granted to them 

113 



Source Problems In United States History 

upon the like tenure. But, that it is now, or was, 
when the plantations were first granted, the prerog- 
ative of the Kings of England to alienate such 
territories from the Crown, or to constitute a number 
5 of new governments, altogether independent of the 
sovereign legislative authority of the English empire, 
I can by no means concede to you. 

Page 371. 

. . . Thus by not distinguishing between the Crown 

of England, and the Kings and Queens of England, 

-10 in their personal or natural capacities, you have been 

led into a fundamental error, which must prove 

fatal to your system. 

[The Governor next asserts that the first charter (1628- 
29) grants exemption from taxes and impositions upon 
IS goods imported into New England or exported to Eng- 
land, and that this exemption implies the right to tax 
after the term of twenty-one years.] 

Page 375. 

Thus, I think, I have made n appear that the 
20 plantations, though not strictly within the realm, 
have, from the beginning, been constitutionally sub- 
ject to the supreme authority of the realm, and are 
so far annexed to it, as to be, with the realm and 
other dependencies upon it, one entire dominion; 
25 and that the plantation, or colony of Massachusetts 
Bay in particular, is holden as feudatory of the im- 
perial Crown of England. Deem it to be no part 

114 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

of the realm, it is immaterial; for, to use the words 
of a very great authority in a case, in some respects 
analogous, ''being feudatory, the conclusion neces- 
sarily follows, that it is under the government of 
s the King's laws and the King's courts, in cases 
proper for them to interpose, though (like Counties 
Palatine) it has peculiar laws and customs, jura 
regalia, and complete jurisdiction at home." 

Page 378. 

10 ... Upon the first advice of the revolution, in 
England, the authority which assumed the govern- 
ment, instructed their agents to petition Parlia- 
ment to restore the first charter, and a bill for that 
purpose, passed the House of Commons, but went 

IS no further. Was not this owning the authority of 
Parliament? By an act of Parliament, passed in 
the first year of King William and Queen Mary, a 
form of oaths was established, to be taken by those 
Princes, and by all succeeding Kings and Queens of 

20 England, at their coronation; the first of which is, 
that they will govern the people of the kingdom, 
and the dominions thereunto belonging, according 
to the statutes in Parliament agreed on, and the 
laws and customs of the same. When the colony 

25 directed their agents to make their humble applica- 
tion to King William, to grant the second charter, 
they could have no other pretence, than, as they 
were inhabitants of part of the dominions of Eng- 

115 



Source Problems in United States History 

land; and they also knew the oath the King had 
taken, to govern them according to the statutes in 
Parliament. Surely, then, at the time of this 
charter, also, it was the sense of our predecessors, 
5 as well as of the King and of the nation, that there 
was, and would remain, a supremacy in the Parlia- 
ment. About the same time, they acknowledge, in 
an address to the King, that they have no power to 
make laws repugnant to the laws of England. . . . 
10 [Answer of the Council to the Governor's speech 
of the Sixteenth of February . . . February 25, 1773.] 
Pages 381, 382. 

[The Council again asserts that by the principle of the 
English Constitution the colonists are free from Parlia- 
15 mentary taxation. But of even more significance, prob- 
ably, is the contention presented in the passage below:] 

... To illustrate our meaning, we beg leave to quote 
a passage from your speech, at the opening of the 
session, where your Excellency says, "so much of the 

20 spirit of liberty breathes through all parts of the 
English constitution, that, although from the na- 
ture of the government, theye must be one supreme 
authority over the whole, yet, this constitution will 
admit of subordinate powers, with legislative and 

25 executive authority, greater or less, according to 
local and other circumstances." This is very true, 
and implies that the legislative and executive au- 
thority granted to the subordinate powers, should 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

extend and operate, as far as the grant allows; and 
that, if it does not exceed the limits prescribed to it, 
and no forfeiture be incurred, the supreme power has 
no rightful authority to take away or diminish it, or 

5 to substitute its own acts, in cases wherein the acts of 
the subordinate power can, according to its constitu- 
tion, operate. To suppose the contrary, is to suppose, 
that it has no property in the privileges granted to 
it; for, if it holds them at the ^ill of the supreme 

10 power, which it must do, by the above supposition, 
it can have no property in them. Upon which prin- 
ciple, which involves the contradiction, that what 
is granted, is, in reality, not granted, no subordi- 
nate power can exist. But, as in fact, the two 

IS powers are not incompatible, and do subsist to- 
gether, each restraining its acts to their constitu- 
tional objects, can we not from hence, see how the 
supreme power may supervise, regulate, and make 
general laws for the kingdom, without interfering 

20 with the privileges of the subordinate powers within 
it? And also, see how it may extend its care and 
protection to its colonies, without injuring their 
constitutional rights? What has been here said, 
concerning supreme authority, has no reference to 

25 the manner in which it has been, in fact, exercised;^ 
but is wholly confined to its general nature. And, 

I By these words the Council seems to say : in practice and in fact 
the empire has had just the kind of organization we contend for, 
and is not an empire with supreme unHmited authority at the center. 

117 



Source Problems in United States History 

if it conveys any just idea of it, the inferences that 
have been, at any time, deduced from it, injurious 
to the rights of the colonists, are not well founded ; 
and have, probably, arisen from a misconception of 
5 the nature of that authority. 

[Answer of the House, March 2, 1773.] 
Page 384. 

Your Excellency says, that, "as English subjects, 
and agreeable to tjie doctrine of the feudal tenure, 

10 all our lands are held mediately, or immediately, 
of the Crown." We trust, your Excellency does not 
mean to introduce the feudal system in its perfec- 
tion; which, to use the words of one of our greatest 
historians, was "a state of perpetual war, anarchy, 

15 and confusion, calculated solely for defence against 
the assaults of any foreign power; but, in its pro- 
vision for the interior order and tranquillity of so- 
ciety, extremely defective. A constitution so con- 
tradictory to all the principles that govern man- 

20 kind, could never be brought about, but by foreign 
conquest or native usurpation." 

Page 386. 

Your Excellency says, *'you can by no means 
concede to us that it is now, or was, when the plan- 
25 tations were first granted, the prerogative of the 
Kings of England, to constitute a number of new 
governments, altogether independent of the sov- 
ereign authority of the EngHsh empire." By the 

118 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

feudal principles, upon which you say "all the 
grants which have been made of America, are founded, 
the constitutions of the Emperor [Empire], have the 
force of law." If our government be considered as 

s merely feudatory, we are subject to the King's abso- 
lute will, and there is no authority of Parliament, 
as the sovereign authority of the British empire. 
Upon these principles, what could hinder the King's 
constituting a number of independent governments 

10 in America. That King Charles the I. did actually 
set up a government in this colony, conceding to it 
powers of making and executing laws, without any 
reservation to the English Parliament, of authority 
to make future laws binding therein, is a fact which 

ts your Excellency has not disproved, if you have 
denied it. Nor have you shewn that the Parliament 
or nation objected to it; from whence we have in- 
ferred that it was an acknowledged right. 

Page 388. 

JO Your Excellency says, that "persons thus holding 
under the Crown of England, remain, or become sub- 
jects of England," by which, we suppose your Ex- 
cellency to mean, subject to the supreme authority 
of Parliament. ... We apprehend, with submission, 

'-5 your Excellency is mistaken in supposing that our 
allegiance is due to the Crown of England. Every 
man swears allegiance for himself, to his own King, 
in his natural person. "Every subject is presumed 

T19 



Source Problems in United States History 

by law to be sworn to the King, which is to his 
natural person," says Lord Coke. Rep. on Calvin's 
case. 

Page 389. 

^ Your Excellency says, that, by "our not dis- 
tinguishing between the Crown of England, and the 
Kangs and Queens of England, in their personal or 
natural capacities, we have been led into a funda- 
mental error." Upon this very distinction we have 

10 availed ourselves. We have said, that our ancestors 
considered the land, which they took possession of 
in America, as out of the bounds of the kingdom of 
England, and out of the reach and extent of the 
laws of England; and, that the King also, even in 

IS the act of granting the charter, considered the terri- 
tory as not within the realm ; that the King had an 
absolute right in himself to dispose of the lands, 
and that this was not disputed by the nation; nor 
could the lands, on any solid grounds, be claimed 

20 by the nation; and, therefore, our ancestors re- 
ceived the lands, by grant, from the King; and, at 
the same time, compacted with him, and promised 
him homage and allegiance, not in his public or 
politic, but natural capacity only. If it be difficult 

25 for us to show how the King acquired a title to this 
country in his natural capacity, or separate from his 
relation to his subjects, which we confess, ' yet we 
conceive it will be equally difficult for your Excel- 

120 .. 



The Preliminaries of the Revolution 

lency to show how the body politic and nation of 
England acquired it. . . . 

Page 3Q3. 

Your Excellency seems chiefly to rely upon our 

5 ancestors, after the revolution, ''proclaiming King 
William and Queen Mary, in the room of King 
James," and taking the oaths to them, ''the altera- 
tion of the form of oaths, from time to time," and 
finally, "the establishment of the form, which every 

10 one of us has complied with, as the charter, in ex- 
press terms requires, and makes our duty." We do 
not know that it has ever been a point in dispute, 
whether the Kings of England were ipso facto Kings 
in, and over, this colony, or province. The compact 

15 was made between King Charles the I. his heirs 
and successors, and the Governor and company, 
their heirs and successors. 

Page 395. 

We cannot help, before we conclude, expressing 
20 our great concern, that your Excellency has thus re- 
peatedly, in a manner, insisted upon our free senti- 
ments on matters of so delicate a nature and weighty 
importance. The question appears to us, to be no 
other, than, whether we are the subjects of absolute 
25 unlimited power, or of a free government, formed 
on the principles of the English constitution. If 
your Excellency's doctrine be true, the people of this 

121 



Source Problems in United States History 

province hold their lands of the Crown and people 
of England; and their lives, liberties, and properties, 
are at their disposal, and that, even by compact 
and their own consent. They were subject to the 

5 King as the head alterius populi of another people, 
in whose Legislative they have no voice or interest. 
They are, indeed, said to have a constitution and 
a Legislative of their own; but your Excellency 
has explained it into a mere phantom; limited, con- 

10 trolled, superseded, and nullified, at the will of 
another. Is this the constitution which so charmed 
our ancestors, that, as your Excellency has informed 
us, they kept a day of solemn thanksgiving to Al- 
mighty God, when they received it? And were they 

IS men of so little discernment, such children in under- 
standing, as to please themselves with the imagina- 
tion, that they were blessed with the same rights 
and liberties which natural born subjects in England 
enjoyed, when, at the same time, they had fully 

20 consented to be ruled and ordered by a Legislative, 
a thousand leagues distant from them, which cannot 
be supposed to be sufficiently acquainted with their 
circumstances, if concerned for their interest, and 
in which, they cannot be in any sense represented? 



PROBLEM III 

III. — The Power of a Court to Declare a Law 
Unconstitutional 



The Power of a Court to Declare a Law 
Unconstitutional 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM 

THE origin of the historical background of the power 
of the courts in the American governmental system 
is a subject of interest. Particularly in recent years, 
there has been much discussion of the practice of declar- 
ing laws void. Some persons have declared that the 
courts have usurped authority; they maintain that no 
justification can be found, in the constitutions or in any 
evident purpose of the framers, for the exercise of any such 
power. The problem, which the following sources enable 
us to study in part, presents its real difficulties; but the 
student should notice that the selections here given are 
not chosen for the purpose of giving him an opportunity 
to decide with full assurance whether or not the men 
that made our constitutions consciously purposed to 
bestow this authority on the courts. Perhaps that ques- 
tion cannot be answered in all cases with perfect con- 
fidence; some writers contend that the men of the Fed- 
eral Convention expected that the courts would declare 
void laws that violated the Constitution; but such writ- 
ers necessarily reach this conclusion from the examina- 
tion of more than the debates in the Convention ; and we 
should remember that, even if the Federal Courts were by 
express purpose given this authority, (a) the principle 
had been asserted in the state courts with reference to 

125 



Source Problems in United States History 

their power to declare state acts void though there is 
no evidence of an expHcit purpose of the people to bestow 
such power ; (b) even should we find such explicit bestowal 
or express purpose, we should be interested to know why 
and how such a step was taken. 

If we make no pretense of being able, with the sources 
here presented, to decide whether the courts have seized 
upon undelegated power, we can see something of the 
historical background and the road traveled. We can 
see something of the arguments on which men relied 
when they asserted that courts possessed this power and 
duty. The line of argument is itself an historical fact, 
perhaps more important for us than would be an express 
purpose in the minds of constitution makers, if any such 
purpose could be found. 

Of great significance is the close relation between the 
rise of this judicial power and the main argument of the 
American Revolution — that Parliament was not possessed 
of unlimited authority, an argument chiefly resting upon 
what were considered the fundamentals of British liberty. 

"The prevailing reason at this time, "said Hutchinson 
in 1765, **is that the Act of Parliament is against Magna 
Charta, and the Natural Rights of Englishmen, and 
therefore, according to Lord Coke, null and void." The 
sources should, therefore, be studied in connection with 
the sources on the Revolution (II). Some of the selec- 
tions that are given to show the American position in the 
decade before the Revolution would be quite as ap- 
plicable to explain the rise of judicial authority. (Note 
especially Problem II, selections i and 5.) Even such 
an incomplete study as we can here make will lead us to 
see that institutions and constitutions grow and are not 
made out of hand by sudden inspiration. 

Between 1780 and 1787, state judges exercised this 
power or stated the principle on various occasions — 

126 



The Power of a Court 

Holmes r5. Walton (New Jersey, 1780); Caton vs. Com- 
monwealth (Virginia, 1782); Trevett vs. Weeden (Rhode 
Island, 1786); Bayard vs. Singleton (North Carolina, 
1787). And on sundry occasions, after 1787 and before 
1803, similar assertions were made. Noteworthy are the 
statements appearing in the answers of some of the states 
to the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. (See H. V. 
Ames, State Documents on Federal Relations, pp. 16-26.) 

In 1803, Chief Justice Marshall, in giving the opinion 
of the Federal Supreme Court on the case of Marbury 
vs. Madison (i Cranch Reports, 137), declared a portion 
of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. This was 
the first time that the Federal Supreme Court exercised 
this power. In doing so Marshall presented at con- 
siderable length the reasoning on which the power of the 
Court acted. He referred to the fact that the judicial 
power is evidently extended by the Constitution to "all 
cases arising under the constitution" and he pointed to 
various explicit restrictions on Congressional authority, 
and announced that, in consequence, "the framers of the 
Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for 
the government of courts, as well as of the legislature." 
He also mentioned, without emphasis or extended com- 
ment, the statement in the Constitution that the Con- 
stitution laws and treaties are the supreme law of the 
land. Still, Marshall's decision rests chiefly on state- 
ments concerning the nature of a written constitution. 
We find in Marshall's argument, for it is an argument, 
little or nothing new; perhaps Hamilton's and Iredell's 
arguments which were given some years before are more 
cogent and convincing. However that may be, the 
sources in this volume will enable us to see that the 
principle had been long under discussion before 1803. 
It should be noticed, moreover, that by no means every- 
thing throwing light on the development is here pre- 

127 



Source Problems in United States History 

sented. If we had space to print everything, the dis- 
play of opinion upholding this power of the court would 
be more impressive; but the general subject and the 
main line of reasoning are probably made sufficiently 
clear by the sources here gathered. 



II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

1 . The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Law of Nature 
applied to the conduct and afairs of nations and sovereigns, 
by Emmerich de Vattel. (Translation from the French. 
Fourth edition, London, 1811.) 

The author was a Swiss. His volume first appeared 
in Ley den in 1758. The English translation was first 
published in 1760. It is not particularly original, rather a 
clever compendiinn of the principles of political theory 
and of international law which had been stated by others ; 
it is not on that account less valuable, probably, for it 
was much used and referred to. Next to the English 
philosopher Locke, Vattel seems more than any other 
philosopher to have furnished the Americans, if not with 
principles, with statements of principles useful in the 
argimient against unlimited Parliamentary authority. 

2. The Works of John Adams, Second President of the 
United States: with a life of the author, notes and illustra- 
tions, by his grandson, Charles Francis Adams, Vol. II. 
(Boston, 1850.) 

John Adams, then a young lawyer, listened to the 
argument of Otis on the issuing of writs of assistance. 
He took hurried and condensed notes, and these are al- 
most the only original and contemporary source of this 
famous speech. The full notes can be found in the 
Appendix to Volume II of the Works, also in Reports of 
Ca^es argued and adjudged in the Superior Court of Judi- 

128 



The Power of a Court 

cature of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, between lydt 
and 1772, by Josiah Quincy, Jr. (Boston, 1865.) A very 
learned discussion by Horace Gray is given in the Appen- 
dix to the Quincy Reports. 

3. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Court of 
Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call, Vol. IV. (Rich- 
mond, 1833.) 

In the case, Caton vs. the Commonwealth, the court 
did not declare an act of the legislature of Virginia void, 
but refused to recognize a pardon granted by one branch 
of the legislature. The decision was rendered in 1782 
or 1783. Justice George Wythe was long an influential 
judge and lawyer. 

4. American Criminal Trials (collected), by Peleg W. 
Chandler, Vol. II. (Boston, 1844.) 

From this book we have selected portions of a speech 
by James Mitchell Varnum in the case, of Trevett vs. 
Weeden (a Rhode Island case, 1786). Weeden was 
brought before the court charged with refusal to take 
paper money. The act under which the action was 
brought provided among other things that there should 
be no jury. The court declared the law void. Varnum's 
speech was originally published in a pamphlet called 
The Case of Trevett against Weeden, on Information and 
Complaint for Refusing Paper Bills in Payment for Butch- 
er's Meat at Par with Specie, by J. M. Varnum. (Provi- 
dence, 1787.) 

5 . North Carolina Reports, embracing * ' Notes of a few dis- 
cussions in the superior courts of the State of North Caro- 
lina . . .", by Francis Xavier Martin; second edition by 
William H. Battle. (Raleigh, 1843.) 

The case of Bayard vs. Singleton (1787) turned on the 
question of title to property which had belonged to a 
British citizen whose property had been confiscated. 
The defendant's counsel asked for a dismissal of the suit 

129 



Source Problems in United States History 

on the ground that an act of the legislattire provided 
that, if a claimant of property made an affidavit that 
he holds the disputed property under a sale from a com- 
missioner of forfeited estates, the courts should dismiss 
the suit on motion — i. e., without trial and without a 
jury. The court refused to adopt this summary method. 

6. Life and Correspondence of James Iredell, one of the 
Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United 
States, by Griffith J. McRee. Two vols. (New York, 
1857, 1858.) ... . . ' 

The reference in this selection to the "determination 
of our judges ' ' at Newbern, is to the decision of the court 
of North Carolina in the case of Bayard vs. Singleton, 
1787. Iredell was long prominent in the state, an able 
lawyer, and was one of the counsel in this case. Richard 
D. Spaight was a member of the North Carolina delega- 
tion to the Federal Convention of 1787. 

7. The Records of the Federal Convention of lySy, edited 
by Max Farrand. Three vols. (New Haven, 191 1.) 

The sources for a study of the work of the Convention 
are to be found in various volumes; they were printed 
at various times. The editor of the Records sought to 
bring together and to print all available sources. No 
stenographic reports were made in the Convention, and. 
the official journal is extremely meager. The most im- 
portant source is the notes of James Madison; other 
delegates took a few notes and some of these notes are 
valuable. The selections which are given below are 
partly from Madison's notes; one is from the notes of 
William Pierce, a delegate to the Convention from Georgia. 
One selection is from a speech made by Oliver Ellsworth 
in the Connecticut Convention for the ratification of the 
Constitution of the United States. 

8. The Federalist, A Commentary on the Constitution of the 
United States by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and 

130 



The Power of a Court 

John Jay, edited by Paul Leicester Ford. (New York, 
1898.) 

The papers of the Federalist were originally printed 
in 1787 and 1788 in the papers of New York. They 
generally appeared in the Independent Journal and also 
the Neiv York Packet, sometimes in other papers, over the 
signature of Publius. The first was published October 
27, 1787, and numbers appeared thereafter at intervals 
of a few days during succeeding months. They were 
widely copied and were widely read. Jay wrote but five 
of the numbers, Hamilton and Madison the rest. There 
were eighty-five in all. A collected edition was published 
in New York in 1788. An edition of the Federalist with 
historical introduction and notes by H. B. Dawson 
(New York, 1863) contains a bibliograph}^ 

9. The Works of James Wilson, Associate Justice of the 
Supreme Court of the United States, and Professor of Law 
in the College of Philadelphia, being his public discourses 
upon jurisprudence and the political science, including 
lectures as Professor of Law, iygo-2, edited by James 
DeWitt Andrews. Two vols. (Chicago, 1896.) 

Wilson was one of the ablest members of the Federal 
Convention of 1787. The extracts here presented are 
from his lectures at the College of Philadelphia, after- 
ward united with the University of Pennsylvania. The 
date of the particular lecture is, probably, sometime in 
the winter of 1790-91. He was at that time an associate 
justice of the Federal Supreme Court. There is an 
earlier edition of Wilson's works edited by Bird Wilson 
(Philadelphia, 1804), in three volumes. 

10. Reports of Cases ruled and adjudged in the several 
courts of the United States and of Pennsylvania, held at 
the seat of the Federal Government, by A. J. Dallas, Vol. 
n. (Second edition, 1907.) 

The words quoted in the present volume are from a 
10 131 



Source Problems in United States History 

charge to the jury in a case in the Federal Circuit Court 
in the Pennsylvania district (1795). In this case, Van 
Home's Lessee vs. Dorrance, Justice Paterson, a federal 
justice, declared a state law in conflict with a state con- 
stitution null and void. The selections from the charge 
are valuable because Paterson had been a member of the 
Federal Convention, because the power of the court is 
clearly stated, and because of the early date at which the 
opinions were expressed. 

II. Reports of cases argued and determined in the Gen- 
eral Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Maryland, 
from 1800 to 1805 inclusive, by Thomas Harris and 
Reverdy Johnson, Vol. I. (Annapolis, 182 1.) 

In the case of Whittington vs. Polk a law was not pro- 
claimed void, but the right of the court to declare a law 
void, though conceded by counsel, was discussed at length. 



III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

1. Does Vattel think that the legislature can change the con- 

stitution? What does he seem to mean by the con- 
stitution? Were there written constitutions in Europe 
as far as you know when this book of his was written? 
Notice the expression "The constitution ought to pos- 
sess stability" in the sources given in this division of 
this volume, and also in the preceding. Notice how 
often statements similar to that of Vattel appear. 

2. What do you suppose was James Otis's idea of a constitu- 

tion? What power did he ascribe to the court? Were 
there any English authorities that appeared to say 
that the courts could declare an act void? On what 
ground could a court thus act? 

3. Do you see here and in other documents evidence that the 

Revolutionary argument rested on the belief that some 
actions of Parliament might be unconstitutional and 
hence illegal? 

132 



The Power of a Court 

4. Is there evidence that, in part at least, the argument of the 

Colonists against Parliament was similar to or identical 
with the argument in favor of judicial power to declare 
a law .void? 

5. State briefly the announcement of Justice Wythe in Caton 

vs. Commonwealth. 

6. Rhode Island did not, in the Revolutionary time, adopt a 

new constitution. Does Varnum nevertheless argue 
that the legislature was bound? How? What two 
writers does he quote? Does he give evidence of using 
the main line of argument used by the Americans 
against Parliamentary authority — viz., that there are 
limits on legislative power? 

7. Does a court in the case of Bayard vs. Singleton declare the 

independence of the judiciary? Does the right of a 
court to declare a law void arise from the independence 
of the judiciary? How does a court, by supposing ex- 
treme examples of legislative power, argue that the 
legislature must obey the constitution and that the 
courts must recognize the constitution as law? 

8. How does Iredell deliberately connect the character and 

purpose of the constitution directly with the experi- 
ences of the Revolution? 

9. How does he meet the assertion that the remedy for a legis- 

lative breach of the constitution is only petition or 
insurrection? 

10. Does he admit that a lower court can declare a law void? 

11. How does Spaight point out the dangers of judicial power? 

What does he think would be the consequences of recog- 
nizing judicial right to call laws void? 

12. What remedy does Spaight think exists for unconstitutional 

acts? 

13. Does Iredell in his letter to Spaight think Parliament is 

bound by natural justice? Does he believe that con- 
stitutions confide all power to the majority? 

14. Do the judges, according to Iredell, act as arbiters on ap- 

plication — i. e., is the court a sort of external authority 
called in to settle differences of opinion between legis- 
133 



Source Problems in United States History 

lators, or even between legislators and people, or does 
it act only in a case? 

15. What two examples does he propose of the necessity of 

judicial authority? 

16. Does he think the courts likely to abuse their power? Why 

not? 

17. Where and how often in the sources here given do you find 

the words *' fundamental law"? Was the expression 
used of an unwritten constitution before it was of a 
written constitution? 

18. What is the argument of Iredell to the effect that courts 

must recognize constitutional restraints in behalf of 
the individual liberty? 

19. Is it quite plain that Iredell and Spaight agreed in asserting 

that the constitution bound the legislature? If so, 
where did they differ? 

20. Was the principle of the power of the courts to declare a 

law void announced in the Federal Convention? 

21. Do you think from the sources here given that the framers 

certainly intended that the courts should have this 
power, or do you think that we must be uncertain? 

22. Is there evidence in documents already given in this volume 

that the principle had been thoroughly stated before 
the Federal Convention met? 

23. Why did Gerry object to making the judges a part of a 

council of revision? What was King's contention? 

24. What was Wilson's argument in the convention? Does he 

think that judges might have the power to declare law 
void and might also act as part of a council of revision? 
Why did he wish to have the judges members of the 
council of revision? 

25. Why did Luther Martin object to associating judgments 

with the re visionary power? 

26. Does Madison desire to have the judges given veto power — 

i. e., power of objecting to acts before they become 
laws? Does he appear to believe that they might 
also declare laws void? 

27. Does the fact that the motion to associate the judges with 

134 



The Power of a Court 

the executive in a council of revision was lost, indicate 
that the judges were supposed to have authority and 
to declare acts void when they were acting in their 
judicial capacity? 

28. What was Mercer's argimient? 

29. Did Gouverneur Morris think that judges should recognize 

a direct violation of the constitution as a law? 

30. How did Ellsworth speak of the judicial department? Is it 

plain that he looked on the courts as instruments for 
maintaining the constitution? 

31. What is Hamilton's argument from the general principle 

as to the exercise of delegated authority? Does he 
appear to 'assert that, once the authority of congress 
or legislature is recognized to be delegated authority, 
the validity of its acts must be passed on just as any 
act of an agent with authority delegated by a prin- 
cipal? 

32. Hamilton asserts that the courts were designed by the peo- 

ple to be an intermediary body. Have you found that 
other persons make this assertion or the assertion that 
the courts, acting in their field, are independent? Does 
this portion of Hamilton's argument on the whole agree 
with the rest of it? 
T,T,. How does Hamilton meet the declaration that, acknowledg- 
ing the binding force of the constitution, the legisla- 
ture must nevertheless judge of its own power? 

34. According to Hamilton, does the power of the courts make 

them superior to the legislature? 

35. Does Hamilton speak of the power of courts to select one 

of two contradictory legislative enactments? Is there 
a similar line of reasoning in Iredell's statement? 

36. How does Hamilton meet the assertion that the courts might 

substitute their own pleasure for the constitutional 
intention of the legislature? 

37. Is it apparent from the various sources that the power in 

question is not the peculiar right or duty of the Federal 
Supreme Court, but, rather, belongs to courts in general? 

38. Does Wilson think that Parliament is controlled by natural 

135 



Source Problems in United States History 

or divine law? That courts will so hold? What ad- 
ditional restraint on legislative power exists in America? 

39. In Wilson's judgment does the power of enforcing the con- 

stitution make the courts superior to the legislature? 

40. What does Justice Paterson assert to be the position of the 

court? Is it inferior to other branches? Does the power 
to interpret and declare the constitution rest on superior 
power or on equality with other branches? 

41. Does Justice Chase rest the power of the court on superior- 

ity to other branches of the government or on the in- 
dependence of each? Does he appear to see that the 
judiciary has a special duty to check legislative action? 
Does it appear that this power was generally acknowl- 
edged in Maryland before 1802? 

42. Does it appear from these selections that the course of 

reasoning was, historically, from the assertion that 
government is bound by principles of "natural justice" 
— the earlier contention — to the assertion that written 
constitutions embody fundamental law? 



IV. The Sources^ 

I, The Law of Nations, etc., by Emmerich de Vattel. 

(Fourth edition, London, 1811.) Book I, p. 34. 

Here again a very important question presents 

itself. It essentially belongs to the society to make 

5 laws both in relation to the hianner in which it 
desires to be governed, and to the conduct of the 
citizens: — this is called the legislative power. The 
nation may intrust the exercise of it to the prince, 
or to an assembly; or to that assembly and the 

10 prince jointly; who have then a right to make new 
laws and to repeal old ones. It is asked whether 
their power extends to the fundamental laws, — • 
whether they may change the constitution of the 
state ? The principles we have laid down lead us 

15 to decide with certainty, that the authority of these 
legislators does not extend so far, and that they 
ought to consider the fundamental laws as sacred, 
if the nation has not, in very express terms, given 
them power to change them. For the constitution 

20 of the state ought to possess stability:- and since 

1 Italics are partially omitted in document 3,6. 

^The Rights of the Colonies Asserted and Proved, by James Otis, 
published in 1765, contained in addition to Otis's argument instruc- 
tions of Boston to her representatives in the Legislature, and also 



Source Problems in United States History 

that was first established by the nation, which 
afterwards intrusted certain persons with the legis- 
lative power, the fundamental laws are excepted 
from their commission. It is visible that the so- 

5 ciety only intended to make provision^ for having 
the state constantly "furnished with laws suited to 
particular conjunctures, and, for that purpose, gave 
the legislature the power of abrogating the ancient 
civil and political laws that were not fundamental, 

lo and of making new ones: but nothing leads us to 
think that it meant to submit the constitution itself 
to their will. In short, it is from the constitution 
that those legislators derive their power: how then 
can they change it, without destroying the founda- 

15 tion of their own authority? By the fundamental 
laws of England, the two houses of parliament, in 
concert with the king, exercise the legislative power : 
but if the two houses should resolve to suppress 
themselves, and to invest the king with full and 

20 absolute authority, certainly the nation would not 
suffer it. And who would dare to assert that they 
would not have a right to oppose it? But if the 
parliament entered into a debate on making so 
considerable a change, and the whole nation was 

25 "Substance of a Memorial presented to the House . . . and by them 
voted to be transmitted to Jasper Mauduit ; Agent for this province." 
As a foot-note to the memorial, as published, is a quotation from 
Vattel, similar to the above as far as the words "to their will." 
The translation is different in wording: the sentence above reading, 

^o "For the constitution of the state ought to be fixed." 

138 



The Power of a Court 

voluntarily silent upon it, this would be considered 
as an approbation of the act of its representa- 
tives. 

2. Works of John Adams, II, p. 522. [A portion 

5 of the argument by James Otis in the writs 

of assistance case, Massachusetts, 1761.] 

As to Acts of Parliament. An act against the 

Constitution is void : an Act against natural equity 

is void; and if an act of Parliament should be 

10 made, in the very words of this petition, it would 
be void. The executive Courts must pass such 
acts into disuse. 8 Rep. 118 from Viner. Reason 
of the common law to control an act of Par- 
liament. Iron manufacture. Noble Lord's pro- 

15 posal, that we should send our horses to England 
to be shod. ... 

[The following is taken from a learned discussion 
of the writs of assistance by Horace Gray, and pub- 
lished in Quincy Reports, This quotation is found 

20 on p. 520.] 

But Otis, while he recognized the jurisdiction of 
Parliament over the Colonies, denied that it was 
the final arbiter of the justice and constitutionality 
of its own acts ; and relying upon words of the great- 

25 est English lawyers, and putting out of sight the 
circumstances under which they were uttered, con- 
tended that the validity of statutes must be 
judged by the Courts of Justice; and thus fore- 
shadowed the principle of American Constitutional 

139 



Source Problems in United States History 

Law, that it is the duty of the judiciary to declare 
unconstitutional statutes void. 

His main reliance was the well known statement 
of Lord Coke in Dr. Bonham's case — "It appeareth 

s in our books, that in many cases the common law 
will control Acts of Parliament and adjudge them to 
be utterly void; for where an Act of Parliament is 
against common right and reason or repugnant or 
impossible to be performed, the common law will con- 

10 trol it and adjudge it to be void." Otis seems also to 
have had in mind the equally familiar dictum of Lord 
Hobart — * ' Even an Act of Parliament made against 
natural equity, as to make a man judge of his own 
case, is void in itself: for jura naturcc sunt inimuta- 

15 hilia, and they are leges legum.'' Lord Holt is re- 
ported to have said, ''What my Lord Coke says in 
Dr. Bonham's case in his 8 Rep. is far from any ex- 
travagancy, for it is a very reasonable and true say- 
ing. That if an Act of Parliament should ordain that 

20 the same person should be party and judge, or what 
is the same thing, judge in his own cause, it would 
be a void Act of Parliament." 

The law was laid down in the same way, on the 
authority of the above cases, in Bacon's Abridgment, 

25 first published in 1735 ; in Viner's Abridgment, pub- 
lished 1 741-51, from which Otis quoted it; and in 
Comyn's Digest, published 1762-7, but written 
more than twenty years before. And there are older 
authorities to the same effect. So that at the time 

140 



The Power of a Court 

of Otis's agreement [argument] his position appeared 
to be supported by some of the highest authorities 
in the English law. 

3. Reports of cases argued and decided in the Court 

s of Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. Vol. 

IV, p. 5. Caton vs. Commonwealth. [The 

case came before the Court by adjournment 

from the General Court. The facts are as 

stated below.] 

10 John Caton, Joshua Hopkins and John Lamb were 

condemned for treason, by the general court, under 

the act of assembly concerning that offence, passed 

in 1776, which takes from the executive, the power 

of granting pardon in such cases. The house of 

15 delegates by resolution of the i8th of June, 1782, 

granted them a pardon, and sent it to the senate 

for concurrence; which they refused. ... In October 

1782, the attorney general, moved in the general 

court, that execution of the judgment might be 

20 awarded. The prisoners pleaded the pardon granted 

by the house of delegates. The attorney general 

denied the validity of the pardon, as the senate had 

not concurred in it : and the general court adjourned 

the case, for novelty and difficult}^ to the court of 

25 appeals. 

[Statement of principle in opinion of Judge 
Wythe.] 
Page 8. 

I have heard of an English chancellor who said, 

141 



Source Problems in United States History 

and it was nobly said, that it was his duty to protect 
the rights of the subject, against the encroachments 
of the crown; and that he would do it, at every 
hazard. But if it was his duty to protect a solitary 

s individual against the rapacity of the sovereign, 
surely, it is equally mine, to protect one branch of 
the legislature, and, consequently, the whole com- 
munity, against the usurpations of the other: and, 
whenever the proper occasion occurs, I shall feel 

10 the duty; and, fearlessly, perform it. Whenever 
traitors shall be fairly convicted, by the verdict of 
their peers, before the competent tribunal, if one 
branch of the legislature, without the concurrence 
of the other, shall attempt to rescue the offenders 

IS from the sentence of the law, I shall not hesitate, 
sitting in this place, to say, to the general court. Fiat 
justitia, mat ccelum; and, to the usurping branch 
of the legislature, you attempt worse than a vain 
thing; for, although, you cannot succeed, you set 

20 an example, which may convulse society to its 
centre. Nay, more, if the whole legislature, an 
event to be deprecated, should attempt to overleap 
the bounds, prescribed to them by the people, I, in 
administering the public justice of the country, will 

25 meet the united powers, at my seat in this tribunal; 
and, pointing to the constitution, will say, to them, 
here is the limit of your authority; and, hither, 
shall you go, but no further. 



142 



The Power of a Court 

Page 20. 

Chancellor Blair and the rest of the judges, were 

of the opinion, that the court had power to declare 

any resolution or act of the legislature, or of either 

5 branch of it, to be unconstitutional and void. . . . 

4. American Criminal Trials, by Peleg W. Chandler. 

Vol. II. [Portions of an Argument of James 

Vamum in the case of Trevett vs, Weeden 

(1786).] 

10 Pages 306-310. 

The powers of legislation, in every possible in- 
stance, are derived from the people at large, are alto- 
gether fiduciary, and subordinate to the association 
by which they are formed. Were there no bounds 
IS to limit and circumscribe the legislature; were they 
to be actuated by their own will, independent of the 
fundamental rules of the community, the govern- 
ment would be a government of men, and not of 
laws. And whenever the legislators depart from 
20 their original engagements, and attempt to make 
laws derogatory to the general principles they were 
bound to support, they become tyrants. **For since 
it can never by supposed," as Mr. Locke well ob- 
serves, ''to be the will of the society, that the legis- 
25 lative should have a power to destroy that which 
every one designs to secure, by entering into so- 
ciety, and for which the people submitted themselves 
to legislators of their own making, whenever the 
legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the 

143 



Source Problems in United States History- 
property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery 
under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a 
state of war with the people." And again, ''when 
the legislators act contrary to the end for which they 

5 were constituted, those who are guilty, are guilty 
of rebellion." 

The powers of our legislature are so clearly de- 
fined in the charter, which is conclusive evidence of 
the compact of the people, as well as of the royal 

10 intention, that a recurrence to them will greatly 
assist us in the present question. Let us attend, 
therefore, to the following passage: ''And that they 
(the general assembly) or the greatest part of them 
then present, whereof the governor or deputy gov- 

15 ernor, and six of the assistants, at least to be seven, 
shall have, and have hereby, given and granted unto 
them, full power and authority, from time to time, 
and at all times hereafter, to make, ordain, consti- 
tute, or repeal such laws, statutes, orders and ordi- 

20 nances, forms and ceremonies of government and 
magistracy, as to them shall seem meet, for the good 
and welfare of the said company, and for the gov- 
ernment and ordering the lands and hereditaments 
hereinafter mentioned to be granted, and of the 

2s people, that do, or at any time hereafter shall, in- 
habit or be within the same; so as such laws, ordi- 
nances and constitutions, so made, be not contrary 
and repugnant unto, but, as near as may be, agree- 
able to the laws of this our realm of England, con- 

144 



The Power of a Court 

sidering the nature and constitution of the place 
and people there." 

This grant, which was obtained in consequence of 
an association of all the people for that purpose, 

5 expressly limits the legislative powers; and by in- 
variable custom and usage they are still so confined, 
that they cannot make any laws repugnant to the 
general system of laws which governed the realm 
of England at the time of the grant. The revolution 

10 has made no change in this respect, so as to abridge 

the people of the means of securing their lives, 

liberty and property; to preserve which they have 

ever considered the trial by jury the most effectual. 

There are certain general principles that are 

15 equally binding in all governments, more especially 
those which define the nature and extent of legis- 
lation. I do not recollect of having ever observed 
them so clearly and elegantly described, as in a 
treatise written by M. de Vattel, upon the laws of 

20 nations and of nature. I shall introduce him. there- 
fore, as he is translated, in his own words. 

[Two long quotations, including ''For the constitu- 
tion of the state ought to be fixed."] 

Have the citizens of this state ever entrusted 

25 their legislators with the power of altering their 

constitution? If they have, when and where was 

the solemn meeting of all the people for that purpose ? 

By what public instrument have they declared it, 

145 



Source Problems in United States History 

or in what part of their conduct have they betrayed 
such extravagance and folly? For what have they 
contended through a long, painful and bloody war 
but to secure inviolate, and transmit unsullied to 
s posterity, the inestimable privileges they receiyed 
from their forefathers ? Will they suffer the glorious 
price of all their toils to be wrested from them, and 
lost forever, by men of their own creating? They 
who have snatched their liberty from the jaws of 
10 the British lion, amidst the thunders of contending 
nations, will they basely surrender it to the adminis- 
tration of a year? As soon may the great Michael 
kick the beam, and Lucifer riot in the spoils of 
angels ! 
IS Constitution! we have none; who dares to say 
that? None but a British emissary, or a traitor to 
his country. Are there any such amongst us? The 
language has been heard, and God forbid that they 
should continue! If we have not a constitution, by 
20 what authority do our general assembly convene to 
make laws, and levy taxes? . . . When met, they 
make laws and levy taxes, and their constituents 
obey those laws, and pay their taxes. Consequently 
they meet, deliberate and enact, in virtue of a con- 
as stitution, which, if they attempt to destroy, or in 
any manner infringe, they violate the trust reposed 
in them, and so their acts are not to be considered 
as laws, or binding upon the people. 

But as the legislative is the supreme power in 
.146 



The Power of a Court 

government, who is to judge whether they have 
violated the constitutional rights of the people? I 
answer, their supremacy (consisting in the power of 
making laws, agreeably to their appointment) is de- 

s rived from the constitution, is subordinate to it, 
and therefore, whenever they attempt to enslave the 
people, and carry their attempts into execution, the 
people themselves will judge, as the only resort in 
the last stages of oppression. But when they pro- 

^0 ceed no farther than merely to enact what they may 
call laws', and refer those to the judiciary courts for 
determination, then, (in discharge of the great 
trust reposed in them, and to prevent the horrors 
of a civil war, as in the present case,) the judges 

IS can, and we trust your honors will, decide upon 
them. 

5. Martin's Reports (North Carolina), Vol. I. Due 
on the Dem. of Bayard and Wife vs. Singleton.] 
Pages 43-45- 

20 The Court made a few observations on our con- 
stitution and system of government. 

Ashe, J. observed, that at the time of our separa- 
tion from Great Britain, we were thrown into a 
similar situation with a set of people ship-wrecked 

25 and cast on a maroon'd island — without laws, with- 
out magistrates, without government, or any legal 
authority — that being thus circumstanced, the peo- 
ple of this country, with a general union of senti- 
ment, by their delegates, met in Congress, and 

H7 



Source Problems in United. States History 

formed that system or those fundamental principles 
comprised in the constitution, dividing the powers 
of government into separate and distinct branches, 
towit: the legislative, the judicial and executive, 

s and assigning to each, several and distinct powers, 
and prescribing their limits and boundaries : this he 
said without disclosing a single sentiment upon the 
cause of the proceding, or the law introduced in 
support of it. 

10 Ctiria advisare vult. 

At May term, 1787, Nash's motion was resumed, 

and produced a very lengthy debate from the bar. 

Whereupon the Court recommended to the parties 

to consent to a fair decision of the property in ques- 

15 tion, by a jury according to the common law of the 
land, and pointed out to the defendant, the uncer- 
tainty, that would always attend his title, if this 
cause should be dismissed without a trial; as upon 
a repeal of the present act, (which would probably 

20 happen sooner or later) suit might be again com- 
menced against him for the same property, at the 
time when evidences, which at present were easy 
to be had, might be wanting. But this recommen- 
dation was without effect. 

25 Another mode was proposed for putting the mat- 
ter in controversy on a more constitutional footing 
for a decision, than that of the motion under the 
aforesaid act. The Court then, after every reason- 
able endeavor had been used in vain for avoiding a 

148 



The Power of a Court 

disagreeable difference between the Legislature and 
the Judicial powers of the State, at length with much 
apparent reluctance, but with great deliberation and 
firmness, gave their opinion separately, but unani- 

5 mously for overruling the aforementioned motion for 
the dismission of the said suits. 

In the course of which the Judges observed, that 
the obligation of their oaths, and the duty of their 
office required them in that situation, to give their 

10 opinion on that important and momentous subject; 
and notwithstanding the great reluctance they might 
feel against involving themselves in a dispute with 
the Legislature of the State, yet no object of con- 
cern or respect could come in competition or au- 

15 thorize them to dispense with the duty they owed 
the pubHc, in consequence of the trust they were 
invested with under the solemnity of their oaths. 

That they therefore were bound to declare that 
they considered, that whatever disabilities the 

20 persons under whom the plaintiffs were said to de- 
rive their titles, might justly have incurred, against 
their maintaining or prosecuting any suits in the 
Courts of this State; yet that such disabilities in 
their nature were merely personal, and not by any 

25 means capable of being transferred to the present 
plaintiffs, either by descent or purchase; and that 
these plaintiffs being citizens of one of the United 
States, are citizens of this State, by the confedera- 
tion of all the States ; which is to be taken as a part 

149 



Source Problems in United States History 

of the law of the land, unrepealable by any act of 
the General Assembly. 

That by the constitution every citizen had un- 
doubtedly a right to a decision of his property by 

s a trial by jury. For that if the Legislature could 
take away this right, and require him to stand con- 
demned in his property without a trial, it might 
with as much authority require his life to be taken 
away without a trial by jury, and that he should 

10 stand condemned to die, without the formality of 
any trial at all: that if the members of the General 
Assembly could do this, they might with equal 
authority, not only render themselves the Legisla- 
tors of the State for life, without any further elec- 

is tion of the people, [but] from thence transmit the 
dignity and authority of legislation down to their 
heirs male forever. 

But that it was clear, that no act they could pass, 
could by any means repeal or alter the constitution, 

20 because if they could do this, they would at the same 
instant of time, destroy their own existence as a 
Legislature, and dissolve the government thereby 
established. Consequently the constitution (which 
the judicial power was bound to take notice of as 

25 much as of any other law whatever,) standing in full 
force as the fundamental law of the land, notwith- 
standing the act on which the present motion was 
grounded, the same act must of course, in that in- 
stance, stand as abrogated and without any effect. 

150 



The Power of a Court 

6. Lije and Correspondence of James Iredell. Vol. 
II. [A letter "to the Public" written by Ire- 
dell and printed in a newspaper in Newbern, 
North Carolina, 1786.] 
5 Pages 145-149. 

I have not lived so short a time in the State, nor 
with so little interest in its concerns, as to forget 
the extreme anxiety with which all of us were agi- 
tated in forming the constitution, a constitution 

10 which we considered as the fundamental basis of 
our government, unalterable, but by the same high 
power which established it, and therefore to be de- 
liberated on with the greatest caution, because if 
it contained any evil principle, the government 

IS formed under it must be annihilated before the evil 
could be corrected. It was, of course, to be con- 
sidered how to impose restrictions on the legislature, 
that might still leave it free to all useful purposes, 
but at the same time guard against the abuse of un- 

20 limited power, which was not to be trusted, with- 
out the most imminent danger, to any man or body 
of men on earth. We had not only been sickened 
and disgusted for years with the high and almost 
impious language from Great Britain, of the omnip- 

25 otent power of the British Parliament, but had 
severely smarted under its effects. We felt in all its 
rigor the mischiefs of an absolute and unbounded 
authority, claimed by so weak a creature as man, 
and should have been guilty of the basest breach of 

151 



Source Problems in United States History 

trust, as well as the grossest folly, if in the same 
moment when we spurned at the insolent despotism 
of Great Britain, we had established a despotic 
power among ourselves. Theories were nothing to 
5 us, opposed to our own severe experience. We were 
not ignorant of the theory of the necessity of the 
legislature being absolute in all cases, because it 
was the great ground of the British pretensions. 
But this was a mere speculative principle, which men 

10 at ease and leisure thought proper to assume. When 
we were at liberty to form a government as we 
thought best, without regard to that or any theoreti- 
cal principle we did not approve of, we decisively 
gave our sentiments against it, being willing to run 

15 all the risks of a government to be conducted on 
the principles then laid as the basis of it. ' The in- 
stance was new in the annals of mankind. No peo- 
ple had ever before deliberately met for so great a 
purpose. Other governments have been established 

20 by chance, caprice, or mere brutal force. Ours, 
thank God, sprang from the deliberate voice of the 
people. We provided, or meant to provide (God 
grant our purpose may not be defeated), for the 
security of every individual, as well as a fluctuating 

25 majority of the people. We knew the value of lib- 
erty too well, to suffer it to depend on the capricious 
voice of popular favor, easily led astray by design- 
ing men, and courted for insidious purposes. Nor 
could we regard, without contempt, a theory which 

152 



The Power of a Court 

required a greater authority in man than (with 
reverence be it spoken) exists even in the Supreme 
Being. For His power is not altogether abso- 
lute — ^His infinite power is limited by His infinite 
5 wisdom. 

I have therefore no doubt, but that the power of 
the x\ssembly is limited and defined by the constitu- 
tion. It is a creature of the constitution. (I hope 
this is an expression not prosecutable.) The people 

lo have chosen to be governed under such and such 
principles. They have not chosen to be governed, 
or promised to submit upon any other ; and the As- 
sembly have no more right to obedience on other 
terms, than any different power on earth has a right 

15 to govern us; for we have as much agreed to be 
governed by the Turkish Divan as by our own 
General Assembly, otherwise than on the express 
terms prescribed. 

These are consequences that seem so natural, and 

20 indeed so irresistible, that I do not observe they 
have been much contested. The great argument is, 
that though the Assembly have not a right to violate 
the constitution, yet if they in fact do so, the only 
remedy is, either by a humble petition that the law 

25 may be repealed, or a universal resistance of the 
people. But that in the mean time, their act, what- 
ever it is, is to be obeyed as a law; for the judicial 
power is not to presume to question the power of 
an act of Assembly. 

153 



Source Problems in United States History 

To these positions, not unconfidently urged, I 
answer : — 

I . That the remedy by petition implies a supposi- 
tion, that the electors hold their rights by the favor 

5 of their representatives. The mere stating of this 
is surely sufficient to excite any man's indignation. 
What ! if the Assembly say, we shall elect only once 
in two years, instead of electing annually, are we 
to petition them to repeal this law? to request that 

10 they will be graciously pleased not to be our tyrants, 
but to allow us the benefit of the government we 
ourselves have chosen, and under which they alone 
derive all their authority? 

But 2. The whole people may resist. A dreadful 

IS expedient indeed. We well know how difficult it is 
to excite the resistance of a whole people, and what 
a calamitous contingency, at best, this is to be re- 
duced to. But it is a sufficient answer, that noth- 
ing can be powerful enough to effect such a purpose 

-'o in a government like ours, but universal oppression. 
A thousand injuries may be suft'ered, and many hun- 
dreds ruined, before tliis can be brought about. 

But this resource is e\'idently derived from the 
principle of unbounded legislative power, that I 
25 have noticed before, and that our constitution repro- 
bates. In England they are in this condition. In 
England, therefore, they are less free than we are. 
Every parliament in that country chosen for three 

154 



The Power of a Court 

years, continued itself for seven. This is an abso- 
lute fact, that happened long within the present cen- 
tury. Would this be a fit precedent for us? May 
our Assembly do so, because their Parliament did? 
5 May our governor have a negative on the laws, be- 
cause he has a faint image of monarchial power? 
As little, I trust, is the government of Great Britain 
to influence in other things, equally inconsistent 
^\4th our condition, and equally proposterous as 

10 these. 

These two remedies then being rejected, it re- 
mains to be inquired whether the judicial power 
hath any authority to interfere in such a case. The 
duty of that power, I conceive, in all cases, is to 

IS decide according to the laws of the State. It will 
not be denied, I suppose, that the constitution is a 
law of the State, as well as an act of Assembly, with 
this difference only, that it is the fundamental law, 
and unalterable by the legislature, which derives 

20 all its powers from it. One act of Assembly may 
repeal another act of Assembly. For this reason, 
the latter act is to be obeyed, and not the former. 
An act of Assembly cannot repeal the constitution, 
or any part of it. For that reason, an act of Assem- 

25 bly, inconsistent with the constitution, is void, and 
cannot be obeyed, without disobeying the superior 
law to which we were previously and irrevocably 
bound. The judges, therefore, must take care at 
their ]:>oril, that every act of Assembly, they presume 

155 



Source Problems in United States History 



1 



to enforce is warranted by the constitution, since if 
it is not, they act without lawful authority. This is 
not a usurped or a discretionary power, but one in- 
evitably resulting from the constitution of their 

5 office, they being judges for the benefit of the whole 
people, not mere servants of the Assembly. And the 
danger, about which there is so much alarm, attend- 
ing the exercise of this power is, in my opinion, 
the least that can be imagined to attend the exer- 

10 cise of any important power whatever. ... It may 
also be observed, that if the judges should be dis- 
posed to abuse their power, merely for the sake of 
the abuse, they have means enough of doing so, 
for every act of Assembly may occasionally come 

IS under their judgment in one shape or other, and 
those acts may be willfully misconstrued, as well as 
the constitution. 

But it is said, if the judges have this power, so 
have the county courts. I admit it. The county 

20 courts, in the exercise of equal judicial power, must 
have equal authority. But every argument in re- 
spect to the judges (except their dependence for 
salary), and other obvious ones, occur in great force 
against this danger, besides the liberty of appeal, 

25 which ultimately rests every thing, almost, with 
the superior courts. The objection, however, urged 
by some persons, that sheriffs and other ministerial 
officers must exercise their judgments too, does not 
apply. For if the power of judging rests with the 

156 



The Power of a Court 

courts, their decision is final as to the subject matter. 
Did ever a sheriff refuse to hang a man, because he 
thought he was unjustly convicted of murder? 

[A letter from Richard Dobbs Spaight to James 
5 Iredell, August 12, 1787.] 
Pages 169, 170. 

. . . The late determination of our judges at New- 
bern, must, in my opinion, produce the most serious 
reflections in the breast of every thinking man, and 

10 of every well-wisher to his country. It cannot be 
denied, but that the Assembly have passed laws 
unjust in themselves, and militating in their prin- 
ciples against the Constitution, in more instances 
than one, and in my opinion of a more alarming and 

15 destructive nature than the one which the judges, 
by their own authority, thought proper to set aside 
and declare void. The laws I allude to are the ten- 
der laws, and the laws for increasing the jurisdiction 
of the justices of the peace out of court : the latter 

20 they have allowed to operate without censure or 
opposition; the former they have openly and 
avowedly supported, to the great disgrace of their 
characters I do not pretend to vindicate the law, 
which has been the subject of controversy: it is 

25 immaterial what law they have declared void; it 
is their usu pation of the authority to do it, that I 
complain of, as I do most positively deny that they 
have any such power* nor can they find anything 

157 



Source Problems in United States History 

in the Constitution, either directly or impliedly, that 
will support them, or give them any color of right 
to exercise that authority. Besides, it would have 
been absurd, and contrary to all the practice of all 

s the world, had the Constitution vested such powers 
in them, as they would have operated as an absolute 
negative on the proceedings of the Legislature, 
which no judiciary ought ever to possess: and the 
State, instead of being governed by the represent a- 

10 tives in general Assembly, would be subject to the 
will of three individuals, who united in their own 
persons the legislative and judiciary powers, which 
no monarch in Europe enjoys, and which would be 
more despotic than the Roman Decemvirate and 

15 equally as insufferable. If they possessed the power, 
what check or control would there be to their pro- 
ceedings? or who is there to take the same liberty 
with them, that they have taken with the Legisla- 
ture, and declare their opinions to be erroneous? 

20 none that I know of. In consequence of which, 
whenever the judges should become corrupt, they 
might at pleasure set aside every law, however just 
or consistent with the Constitution, to answer their 
designs; and the persons and property of every 

25 individual would be completely at their disposal. 
Many instances might be brought to show the ab- 
surdity and impropriety of such a power being 
lodged wi h the judges. 

It must be acknowledged that our Constitution, 
158 



The Power of a Court 

unfortunately, has not provided a sufficient check, 
to prevent the intemperate and unjust proceedings 
of our Legislature, though such a check would be 
very beneficial, and, I think, absolutely necessary 
5 to our well-being: the only one that I know of, is 
the annual election, which, by leaving out such 
members as have supported improper measures, 
will in some degree remedy, though it cannot pre- 
vent, such evils as may arise. I should not have 
10 intruded this subject upon you, but as it must cer- 
tainly undergo a public discussion, I wish to know 
what is the general opinion on that transaction. . . . 
[Letter from Iredell to Richard D. Spaight, 
August 26, 1787.] 
IS Pages 172-176. 

In regard to the late decision at Newbern, I con- 
fess it has ever been my opinion, that an act in- 
consistent with the Constitution was void ; and that 
the judges, consistently with their duties, could not 
20 carry it into effect. The Constitution appears to 
me to be a fundamental law, limiting the powers of 
the Legislature, and with which every exercise of 
those powers must, necessarily, be compared. With- 
out an express Constitution the powers of the Legis- 
ts lature would undoubtedly have been absolute (as 
the Parliament in Great Britain is held to be), and 
any act passed, not inconsistent with natural justice 
(for that curb is avowed by the judges even in Eng- 
land), would have been binding on the people. The 
1 159 



Source Problems in United States History 

experience of the evils which the American war fully 
disclosed, attending an absolute power in a legisla- 
tive body, suggested the propriety of a real, original 
contract between the people and their future Gov- 

5 ernment, such, perhaps, as there has been no in- 
stance of in the world but in America. Had not 
this been the case, bills of attainder, and other acts 
of party violence, might have ruined many worthy 
individuals here, as they have frequently done in 

10 England, where such things are much oftener the 
acts of a party than the result of a fair judicial en- 
quiry. In a republican Government (as I conceive) 
individual liberty is a matter of the utmost moment, 
as, if there be no check upon the pubHc passions, it 

IS is in the greatest danger. The majority having the 
rule in their own hands, may take care of themselves; 
but in what condition are the minority, if the power 
of the other is without limit? These considerations, 
I suppose, or similar ones, occasioned such express 

20 provisions for the personal liberty of each citizen, 
which the citizens, when they formed the Constitu- 
tion, chose to reserve as an unalienated right, and 
not to leave at the mercy of any Assembly whatever. 
The restriction might be attended with incon- 

25 venience; but they chose to risk the inconvenience, 
for the sake of the advantage; and in every trans- 
action we must act in the same manner: we must 
choose between evils of some sort or other: the 
imperfection of man can never keep entirely clear 

i6o 



The Power of a Court 

of all. The Constitution, therefore, being a funda- 
mental law, and a law in writing of the solemn 
nature I have mentioned (which is the light in which 
it strikes me), the judicial power, in the exercise of 

5 their authority, must take notice of it as the ground- 
work of that as well as of all other authority; and 
as no article of the Constitution can be repealed 
by a Legislature, which derives its whole power from 
it, it follows either that the fundamental unrepeal- 

10 able law must be obeyed, by the rejection of an 
act unwarranted by and inconsistent with it, or 
you must obey an act founded on an authority not 
given by the people, and to which, therefore, the 
people owe no obedience. It is not that the judges 

15 are appointed arbiters, and to determine as it were 
upon any application, whether the Assembly have 
or have not violated the Constitution; but when 
an act is necessarily brought in judgment before 
them, they must, unavoidably, determine one way 

20 or another. . . . Suppose, therefore, the Assembly 
should pass an act, declaring that in future in all 
criminal trials the trial by jury should be abolished, 
and the court alone should determine. The Attor- 
ney-General indicts; the indictment is found; the 

25 criminal is arraigned, and the Attorney-General re- 
quires his trial to come on. The criminal objects, 
alleging that by the Constitution all the citizens in 
such cases are entitled to a trial by jury; and that 
the Assembly have no right to alter any part of the 

161 



Source Problems in United States History 

Constitution; and that therefore the act appointing 
the trial by the court is void. Must not the court 
determine some way or other, whether the man 
shall be tried or not? Must not they say whether 
s they will obey the Constitution or an act inconsistent 
with it? So — suppose a still stronger case, that the 
Assembly should repeal the law naming the day of 
election, (for that is not named in the Constitution,) 
and adjourn to a day beyond it, and pass acts, and 
10 these acts be attempted to be enforced in the courts. 
Must not the court decide whether they will obey 
such acts or no? And would it be approved of (ex- 
cept by a majority of the de facto Assembly) if 
they should say, "We cannot presume to declare 
IS that the Assembly, who were chosen for one year, 
have exceeded their authority by acting after the 
year expired." It really appears to me, the exer- 
cise of the power is unavoidable, the Constitution 
not being a mere imaginary thing, about which ten 
20 thousand different opinions may be formed, but a 
written document to which all may have recourse, 
and to which, therefore, the judges cannot wilfully 
blind themselves. This seems also to have been the 
idea of some of the early Assemblies under the Con- 
as stitution, since, in the oath of allegiance are these 
expressions : " I, A.B. do sincerely promise and swear, 
that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the 
State of North Carolina, and to the powers and 
authorities which are or may be established for the 

162 



The Power of a Court 

government thereof, not inconsistent with the Con- 
stitution." (Act of Nov. 1777.) 
7. Records of the Federal Convention, Vols. I, II, III. 
[From the Notes of James Madison of pro- 
5 ceedings on June 4, 1787.] 

Vol. I, p. 97. 

(First) Clause (of Proposition 8th) relating to a 

Council of Revision taken into con-consideration.^ 

Mr. Gerry doubts whether the Judiciary ought to 

10 form a part of it, as they will have a sufficient check 

agst. encroachments on their own department by 

their exposition of the laws, which involved a power 

of deciding on their Constitutionality. In some 

States the Judges had (actually) set aside laws ^s 

IS being agst. the Constitution. This was done too 

with general approbation. It was quite foreign 

from the nature of ye. office to make them judges 

of the policy of public measures. 

[From the Notes of William Pierce of proceedings 
20 on June 4th.] 
Vol. I, p. 109. 

... It was proposed that the Judicial should be 
joined with the Executive to revise the Laws. 

^ The subject under consideration was a portion of the eighth 
25 resolution of the Virginia Plan presented to the Convention, May 
29th. It proposed "that the Executive and a convenient number 
of the National Judiciary, ought to compose a council of revision 
with authority to examine every act of the National Legislature 
before it shall operate. ..." 

12 163 



Source Problems in United States History 

Mr. King was of opinion that the Judicial ought 
not to join in the negative of a Law, because the 
Judges \\411 have the expounding of those Laws 
when they come before them; and they will no 
s doubt stop the operation of such as shall appear 
repugnant to the constitution. 



[From the Notes of James Madison of proceedings 
on July 2 1 St.] 

Vol. II, p. 73- 

10 ... Mr. . Wilson moved as an amendment to 
Resoln: lo. that the (supreme) Natl Judiciary should 
be associated wdth the Executive in the Revisionary 
power. This proposition had been before made, 
and failed; but he was so confirmed by reflection 

i5 in the opinion of its utility, that he thought it in- 
cumbent on him to make another effort : The Judi- 
ciary ought to have an opportunity of remonstrat- 
ing agst projected encroachments on the people as 
well as on themselves. It had been said that the 

20 Judges, as expositors of the Laws would have an 
opportunity of defending their constitutional rights. 
There w^s weight in this observation; but this 
power of the Judges did not go far enough. Laws 
may be unjust, may be un"^\dse, may be dangerous, 

25 may be destructive; and yet not be so imconstitu- 
tional as to justify the Judges in refusing to give 

164 



The Power of a Court 

them effect. Let them have a share in the Revi- 
sionary power, and they will have an opportunity 
of taking notice of these characters of a law, and of 
counteracting, by the weight of their opinions the 
5 improper views of the Legislature. — Mr. (Madison) 
2ded. the motion. 

Pages, 76, 77. 

Mr. L. Martin, considered the association of the 
Judges with the Executive as a dangerous innova- 

10 tion ; as well as one which, could not produce the par- 
ticular advantage expected from it. A knowledge 
of mankind, and of Legislative affairs cannot be 
presumed to belong in a higher deger [sic] degree to 
the Judges than to the Legislature. And as to the 

IS Constitutionality of laws, that point will come be- 
fore the Judges in their proper official character. 
In this character they have a negative on the laws. 
Join them with the Executive in the Revision and 
they will have a double negative. It is necessary 

20 that the Supreme Judiciary should have the con- 
fidence of the people. This will soon be lost, if they 
are employed in the task of remonstrating agst. 
popular measures of the Legislature. Besides in 
what mode & proportion are they to vote in the 

25 Council of Revision? 

[Mr. Madison argued strongly in favor of associating 
the judges with the executive in a revisionary check on 
the legislature.] 

i6s 



Source Problems in United States History 

Page 78. 

Col. Mason Observed that the defence of the Ex- 
ecutive was not the sole object of the Revisionary 
power. He expected even greater advantages from 
5 it. Notwithstanding the precautions taken in the 
Constitution of the Legislature, it would so much 
resemble that of the individual States, that it must 
be expected frequently to pass unjust and pernicious 
laws. This restraining power was therefore essen- 

10 tially necessary. It would have the effect not only 
of hindering the final passage of such laws; but 
would discourage demagogues from attempting to 
get them passed. It had been said (by Mr. L. Mar- 
tin) that if the Judges were joined in this check on 

IS the laws, they would have a double negative, since 
in their expository capacity of Judges they would 
have one negative. He would reply that in this 
capacity they could impede in one case only, the 
operation of laws. They could declare an uncon- 

20 stitutional law void. But with regard to every law 
however unjust oppressive or pernicious, which did 
not come plainly under this description, they would 
be under the necessity as Judges to give it a free 
course. He wished the further use to be made of the 

25 Judges, of giving aid in preventing every improper 
law. Their aid will be the more valuable as they 
are in the habit and practice of considering laws in 
their true principles, and in all their consequences. 



166 



The Power of a Court 

Page 80. 

Mr. Rutlidge thought the Judges of all men the 
most unfit to be concerned in the revisionary Coun- 
cil. The Judges ought never to give their opinion 
5 on a law till it comes before them. . . . 

[The motion to associate the judges in the revision of 
laws was lost. Ayes — 3; noes — 4; divided — 2.] 

[James Madison discussing the method of adopt- 
ing the Constitution. From his Notes of July 23d.] 

10 Page 93. 

He considered the difference between a system 
founded on the Legislatures only, and one founded 
on the people, to be the true difference between a 
league or treaty, and a Constitution. . . . 

IS I. A law violating a treaty ratified by a pre- 
existing law, might be respected by the Judges as 
a law, though an unwise or perfidious one. A law 
violating a constitution established by the people 
themselves, would be considered by the Judges as 

20 null & void. 

[From the Notes of James Madison of proceed- 
ings on August 15th.] 

Pages 298, 299. 

Mr. Ma[dison] moved that all acts before they 

25 become laws should be submitted both to the 

Executive and Supreme Judiciary Departments, that 

if either of these should object % of each House, if 

both should object, % of each House, should be 

167 



Source Problems in United States History 

necessary to overrule the objections and give to the 
acts the force of law. . . . 

Mr. Wilson seconds the motion. 
Mr. Pinkney opposed the interference of the 
5 Judges in the Legislative business: it will involve 
them in parties, and give a previous tincture to their 
opinions. 

Mr. Mercer heartily approved the motion. It is 
an axiom that the Judiciary ought to be separate 
10 from the Legislative: but equally so that it ought 
to be independent of that department. The true 
policy of the axiom is that legislative usurpation 
and oppression may be obviated. He disapproved 
of the Doctrine that the Judges as expositors of the 
IS Constitution should have authority to declare a 
law void. He thought laws ought to be well and 
cautiously made, and then to be uncontroulable. . . . 

[Motion of Madison lost. Ayes — 3; noes — 8.] 

Mr. Dickenson was strongly impressed with the 
20 remark of Mr. Mercer as to the power of the Judges 
to set aside the law. He thought no such power 
ought to exist. He was at the same time at a loss 
what expedient to substitute. The Justiciary of 
Aragon he observed became by degrees the law- 
25 giver. 

Mr. Govr. Morris, suggested the expedient of an 
absolute negative in the Executive. He could not 

168 



The Power of a Court 

agree that the Judiciary which was part of the Exec- 
utive, should be bound to say that a direct viola- 
tion of the Constitution was law. A controul over 
the legislature might have its inconveniences. But 

5 view the danger on the other side. The most vir- 
tuous citizens will often as members of a legislative 
body concur in measures which afterwards in their 
private capacity they will be ashamed of. Encroach- 
ments of the popular branch of the Government 

10 ought to be guarded agst. The Ephori at Sparta 
became in the end absolute. The Report of the 
Council of Censors in Pennsylva points out the 
many invasions of the legislative department on the 
Executive numerous as the latter is, within the 

IS short term of seven years, and in a State where a 
strong party is opposed to the Constitution, and 
watching every occasion of turning the public re- 
sentments agst. it. 

[Portions of a speech by Oliver Ellsworth in the 
20 Connecticut Ratifying Convention, January 7, 1788.] 
Vol. Ill, p. 240. 

This Constitution defines the extent of the powers 
of the general government. If the general legis- 
lature should at any time overleap their limits, the 
25 judicial department is a constitutional check. If 
the United States go beyond their powers, if they 
make a law which the Constitution does not au- 
thorize, it is void; and the judicial power, the 

169 



Source Problems in United States History 

national judges, who to secure their impartiality, 
are to be made independent, will declare it to be 
void. On the other hand, if the states go beyond 
their limits, if they make a law which is a usurpa- 

5 tion upon the federal government the law is void; 
and upright, independent judges will declare it to 
be so. 

8. The Federalist, P. L. Ford, editor. [Alexander 
Hamilton, in No. LXXVII. 

10 Page 520. 

. . . The complete independence of the courts of 
justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitu- 
tion. By a limited Constitution I understand one 
which contains certain specified exceptions to the 

IS legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it 
shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, 
and the like. Limitations of this kind can be pre- 
served in practice no other way than through the 
medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must 

20 be to declare dll acts contrary to the manifest tenor 
of the Constitution void. Without this, all the 
reservations of particular rights or privileges would 
amount to nothing. 

Some perplexity respecting the rights of the 

25 courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because 
contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an 
imagination that the doctrine would imply a su- 
periority of the judiciary to the legislative power. 
It is urged that the authority which can declare 

170 



The Power of a Court 

the acts of another void must necessarily be superior 
to the one whose acts may be declared void. As 
this doctrine is of great importance in all the Ameri- 
can constitutions, a brief discussion of the ground 
5 on which it rests cannot be unacceptable. 

There is no position which depends on clearer 
principles than that every act of a delegated au- 
thority, contrary to the tenor of the commission 
under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative 

lo act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be 
valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the 
deputy is greater than his principal; that the ser- 
vant is above his master; that the representatives 
of the people are superior to the people themselves; 

15 that men acting by virtue of powers may do not 
only what their powers do not authorize, but what 
they forbid. 

If it be said that the legislative body are them- 
selves the constitutional judges of their own powers, 

20 and that the construction they put upon them is 
conclusive upon the other departments, it may be 
answered that this cannot be the natural presump- 
tion, where it is not to be collected from any partic- 
ular provisions in the Constitution. It is not other- 

25 wise to be supposed that the Constitution could 
intend to enable the representatives of the people 
to substitute their will to that of their constituents. 
It is far more rational to suppose that the courts 
were designed to be an intermediate body between 

171 



Source Problems in United States History 

the people and the legislature, in order, among other 
things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned 
to their authority. The interpretation of the laws 
is the proper and peculiar pro\dnce of the courts. 
5 A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by 
the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore be- 
longs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as 
the meaning of any particular act proceeding from 
the legislative body. If there should happen to be 
10 an irreconcilable variance between the two. that 
which has the superior obligation and validity 
ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, 
the Constitution ought to be preferred to the 
statute; the intention of the people to the inten- 
ds tion of their agents. 

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose 
a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. 
It only supposes that the power of the people is 
superior to both; and that where the will of the 
20 legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposi- 
tion to that of the people, declared in the Constitu- 
tion, the judges ought to be governed by the latter 
rather than the former. They ought to regulate 
their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than 
25 by those which are not fundamental. 

This exercise of judicial discretion, in determining 
between two contradictory laws, is exemplified in 
a familiar instance. It not uncommonly happens 
that there are two statutes existing at one time, 



The Power of a Court 

clashing in whole or in part with each other, and 
neither of them containing any repealing clause or 
expression. In such a case, it is the province of the 
courts to liquidate and fix their meaning and opera- 
s tion. So far as they can by any fair construction 
be reconciled to each other, reason and law conspire 
to dictate that this should be done; where this is 
impracticable, it becomes a matter of necessity to 
give effect to one, in exclusion of the other. The 

10 rule which has obtained in the courts for determin- 
ing their relative validity is that the last in order 
of time shall be preferred to the first. But this is 
a mere rule of construction, not derived from any 
positive law, but from the nature and reason of the 

IS thing. It is a rule not enjoined upon the courts by 
legislative provision, but adopted by themselves, as 
consonant to truth and propriety, for the direction 
of their conduct as interpreters of the law. They 
thought it reasonable that, between the interfering 

20 acts of an equal authority, that which was the last 
indication of its will should have the preference. 

But in regard to the interfering acts of a superior 
and subordinate authority, of an original and deriv- 
ative power, the nature and reason of the thing in- 

25 dicate the converse of that rule as proper to be 
followed. They teach us that the prior act of a 
superior ought to be preferred to the subsequent act 
of an inferior and subordinate authority; and that 
accordingly, whenever a particular statute contra- 

173 



Source Problems in United State:«i History 

\'enes the Constitiiticm, it will be the duty of the 
judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disne^ 
gard the former. 
It can be of no w>?ight to say that the courts, on 

> the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their 
owTi pleasure to the constitutional intentions of tlie 
legislature. This might as w-ell happen in the case 
of two contnidictory statutes: or it might as wvll 
happen in e\'ery adjudication upon any single 

w> statute. The courts must declare tlie sense of the 
law: and if they should be disposed to exercise will 
instead of judgment, the consequence would equally 
be the substitution of their pleasme to that of the 
Ici^ls' * -v. The obser\'ation. if it proA-e any- 

15 thr/:.. /rovo that there ought to be no judges 

distinct from that Kviy. 

0. TIu-" Works . * J.:tf:<^s Wihoti, edited I y l.vir.os 
Dewitt Andre wx Vo! I 
Pages 415, 410. 

•o 1 know of no power." says Si: WilHimi Black- 
stone, "which can contn.>l the 'i.\.:l:A'.v.e!i: " His 
meaning is oln-iously, that he knew r..^ - -^vwvr 

sufficient for this piir^x^se. Rut they .: !...iy. 

unquestionably, he ^v. : \ ..\'. In !i.k\i:\v1 ^^r reve.Uc«.i 

-5 law, proceediHi: fro: ^ \::';v : :\ Is vo: 00s 

authority superior :.^ ...;\ ...;.>; : \.:; vo: :\ .o.:vu\i 
by parliimient : Is r.ot thissn.o v . . : o :\ : end- 
ing upon the courts of justivx • W :.eo. a ...cniUit 
commands are delivenxi by two oiiteivni aiiihori- 

W4 



\\\v Towi't t>l .1 C\)llll 

tics. OIK' ml(MU>i- .mil ihr olhci :.ii|>cii(»i. whuli 
must l>t' «>1h>\(>i1 ' W'luMi llu' t'omls «>l iiislur «>l)c\ 
\\\c siijUMioi" .nillu>ii(\ , i( r.miiot \\r s.iid willi pio 
prirl \' tli.it llu\\ i-oiitiol I hr mIcruM »>in', lli("\ onU 
> (l(\-l.ir(\ ;is it is then tliit\ to tKHl.nc. ih.ii ijn:; m 
lcMH>r otit' is (-out I ollcil 1>\ tlu> other, whteh is sti 
jHM'ior. 'rhe\' ilo luH rrpe.il the .irt ot | t.nh.imenl 
they proiioiifiee it \-oitl. l>ee;iiise eoiiIi.uA |<» .m n\'er 
iiilini; l;iw, i'rom th.il oxciiuhiir. l.iw. I he\ iceeivi" 

"• the .mlhorit\- to i>i(»noiniee siieh .1 sentenee In this 
<liMi\ ;il i\-e \ie\v. their sentenee is ol ol )li)',.it u »n p.na 
nionnt to the ;u-t ol th<' interior les'isl.it i\ c power. 

in the I'nitetl vSt;ites, the ler.ishi 1 1 \ c ;nithoril\' is 
suhjeeti^l to .inother eontrol, heside Ih.il .irisinr, 

«s iVom iKitnr.il .ind rex-e.iled l;i\\ , it is stilv|<Mled to the 
eontrol ;iri,sinr. li"oin the eonstilntion Imohi the 
eonst it nt ion. the le5nsl.it i\-e dep;ntinent. .is well .is 
t*vei"y other p.irt ol i-ovei ninent , deii\'es its power, 
by the eonst it nt ion. the lej'isl.it i\'e. ;is well .is e\('i\ 

j<' other dep.iit ineni . innst !)<> <lii(«eted; ol the eon 
stitntion. no .ilter.it ion 1»\' the ler.isl.it nn- e.in lie 
ni.ide or ;nit hoi-i/ed. In onr s\stein ol inrisprndeiiee 
the^;e positions ;ippe;ir to he ineoni ro\'eit il >le. 'i'he 
eonst it 111 ion is I he supreme l.iw ol I he l.ind to t h.il 

Js siii)reme l.iw (weiy other |)o\\er innsi he inleiior 
and snl)ordin.it(\ 



Vavc 117. 

This is the neee:;s.'iry res.nlt of the dis.t i-ihni ion of 



Source Problems in United States History 

power, made, by the constitution, between the 
legislative and the judicial departments. The same 
constitution is the supreme law to both. If that 
constitution be infringed by one, it is no reason that 
s the infringement should be abetted, though it is a 
strong reason that it should be discountenanced and 
declared void by the other. 



This regulation is far from throwing any dis- 
10 paragement upon the legislative authority of the 
United States. It does not confer upon the judicial 
department a power superior, in its general nature, 
to that of the legislature; but it confers upon it, in 
particular instances, and for particular purposes, 
15 the power of declaring and enforcing the superior 
power of the constitution — the supreme law of the 
land. 

10. Dallas, Reports of Cases . . . in the several courts 

of the United States. Vol. II (304). [Jus- 

20 tice Paterson's charge to the jury in the 

case of Van Home's Lessee vs. Dorrance, 

I795-] 
Pages 308, 309. 

What is a constitution ? It is the form of govern- 
as ment, delineated by the mighty hand of the people, 
in which certain first principles of fundamental laws 
are established. The constitution is certain and 
fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, 

176 



The Power of a Court 

and is the supreme law of the land ; it is paramount 
to the power of the legislature, and can be revoked 
or altered only by the authority that made it. The 
life-giving principle and the death-doing stroke must 

s proceed from the same hand. What are legislatures ? 
Creatures of the constitution; they owe their exist- 
ence to the constitution: they derive their powers 
from the constitution: it is their commission; and 
therefore, all their acts must be conformable to it, 

10 or else they will be void. The constitution is the 
work or will of the people themselves, in their origi- 
nal sovereign and unlimited capacity. Law is the 
work or will of the legislature, in their derivative 
and subordinate capacity. The one is the work of 

15 the creator, and the other of the creature. The 
constitution fixes limits to the exercise of legislative 
authority, and prescribes the orbit within which it 
must move. 

I take it to be a clear position; that if the legis- 
20 lative act oppugns a constitutional principle, the 
former must give way, and be rejected on the score 
of repugnance. I hold it to be a position equally 
clear and sound, that, in such case, it will be the 
duty of the court to adhere to the constitution, and 
25 to declare the act null and void. The constitution 
is the basis of legislative authority; it lies at the 
foundation of all law, and is a rule and commission 
by which both legislators and judges are to proceed, 

177 



Source Problems in United States History 

It is an important principle, which, in the discussion 
of questions of the present kind, ought never to be 
lost sight of, that the judiciary in this country is 
not a subordinate, but co-ordinate, branch of the 
5 government. 
II. Harris and Johnson, Reports (Maryland). Vol. 
I. [Chief Justice Chase's opinion in the case 
of Whittington vs. Polk (1802).] 
Pages 241-242. 
10 Chase, Ch. J. — In the discussion of this case the 
following points were raised and contended for by 
the counsel of the plaintiff. 

I St. That an act of Assembly repugnant to the 
constitution is void. 
15 2nd. That the court have a right to determine an 
act of Assembly void, which is repugnant to the 
constitution. 

[3rd and 4th points are omitted here as unim- 
portant.] 
20 The two first points were conceded by the counsel 
for the defendant ; indeed, they have not been con- 
troverted in any of the cases which have been 
brought before this court. 
Pages 244, 245. 
25 The three great powers or departments of gov- 
ernment are independent of each other, and the 
legislature, as such, can claim no superiority or pre- 
eminence over the other two. The legislature are the 
trustees of the people, and, as such, can only move 

J78 



The Power of a Court 

within those Hnes which the constitution has de- 
fined as the boundaries of their authority, and if 
they should incautiously, or unadvisedly transcend 
those limits, the constitution has placed the judiciary 
s as the barrier or safeguard to resist the oppression, 
and redress the injuries which might accrue from 
such inadvertent, or unintentional infringements of 
the constitution. 



PROBLEM IV 

IV. — Religious Toleration and Freedom in 
Virginia, 1689-1786 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in 
Virginia, 1689-1786 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OP THE PROBLEM 

THE history of the struggle for rehgious toleration 
and liberty in America is a part of that larger strug- 
gle for democracy which included not only political, but 
also economic, social and religious phases. But at the 
time the American colonies were being settled the demo- 
cratic movement had made but little progress. So far 
as religion was concerned the general practice was a church 
establishment. The privileged classes, then in power, 
feared that a grant of religious toleration or freedom 
would weaken their power. While religious toleration 
had made progress, religious liberty was almost unknown 
at the opening of the seventeenth century. 

It is important to distinguish between these two prin- 
ciples. Religious toleration presupposed an established 
church or its equivalent. Those dissenting from the 
beliefs of this church might be granted a certain meas- 
ure of toleration, not as a right but as a favor; for example, 
freedom to hold their own religious views and the privi- 
lege of choosing their own ministers. But this concession 
did not mean that the dissenters were free from the ob- 
ligation to help support the established church, nor did 
it give them many other privileges which at this date were 
under the control of the church, or that of the state in 

183 



Source Problems in United States History 

its ecclesiastical aspects. For example, even when there 
was a grant of some form of toleration, dissenters were 
usually compelled to submit to various tests or oaths, by 
attesting their orthodoxy and by subscribing to creeds 
and catechisms of the established order, or by promising 
their loyalty to the king or government. Frequently 
there were various religious requirements involving 
membership in the established church, or a profession of 
Christianity, in order to gain citizenship, the right to 
vote, the right to settle in a given colony or become a 
naturalized citizen, hold office, act as a witness in court, 
teach school, etc. A legal marriage could perhaps only 
be performed by a clergyman of the established order. 
Dissenters were subjected to tithes or taxes for the sup- 
port of the established church, even if they were at the 
same time supporting their own ministers. If they had 
no regular service of their own they had to attend the 
services of the established church. 

Complete religious liberty, on the other hand, meant 
absolute freedom to believe any religious doctrine or 
creed, or even none at all. It meant the absolute separa- 
tion of church and state, and a denial of the theory that 
the civil authorities had any power whatever to regulate 
one's religious views, or to make his civil rights depend 
on such views. It meant freedom to organize and main- 
tain churches at any place, freedom to choose ministers, 
and, in short, freedom from all restrictions whatever which 
might be based on religious beliefs or their entire absence. 

The history of religious toleration in Virginia divides 
itself naturally into three periods. First from the charter 
of 1606 to 1689, the passage of the English toleration act; 
^second from 1689 to 1755, the period which, for the most 
'part, concerns the struggle of the Presb3rterians for tolera- 
tion; third from 1755 to 1776. From 1755 to 1768 the 
laws on this question were not enforced, due to the con- 

184 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

ditions growing out of the French and Indian War. 
The years 1768 to 1776 mark the period of the reopening 
of the struggle, largely confined to the efforts of the 
authorities to enforce the laws against the Baptists, and 
the endeavor to prevent the growth of this denomination. 
Virginia was founded and settled without thought of 
religious toleration. On the contrary, the Church of 
England was instituted at once, and during the seven- 
teenth, and the most of the eighteenth century, was be- 
lieved in by a majority of the inhabitants. Instructions 
to the early governors required them to maintain the 
worship of the established church. The early assem- 
blies, from 1619 to 1664, passed acts providing for church 
services according to the laws and orders of the Church 
of England and for church attendance; for requiring 
ministers to conform to its canons; for their support and 
for glebes; for ordering non-conformists out of the 
colony; for the creation of vestries limited to twelve per- 
sons, with power to levy tithes for the ministers' salaries; 
for vestrymen to take the oath of supremacy and to sub- 
scribe to the doctrines and discipline of the Church of Eng- 
land. Vestries were ultimately made close corporations 
and irresponsible, and when once elected by the people of 
the parish they could fill their own vacancies. The ves- 
tries were given the care of the poor and fixed the amount 
of the assessment of each person for this purpose, as well 
as for general church purposes. From 1685 Virginia was 
made a part of the diocese of London under the control 
of the Bishop of London, who from 1691 appointed a com- 
missary or deputy to represent him in the colony, but 
with limited powers. 

There were dissenters in Virginia from an early date, 
Puritans and Quakers, and later German sects and 
Huguenots. There was more or less persecution for 
violation of the religious acts, but these sects did not have 

185 



Source Problems in United States History 

numerous adherents, nor were they particularly aggressive 
or dangerous to the supremacy of the established church, 
so that they offered no serious problem. The English 
toleration act of 1689, together with the Virginia act of 
1699, provided for limited toleration to qualified dis- 
senters, under a system of allowing them to be absent 
from the ser^dces of the established church, without 
penalty, if they attended their own meetings once in 
two months, and a requirement for the licensing of their 
duly qualified ministers for preaching. 

The problem of the dissenters became more serious with 
the rise of the Presbyterian denomination. There were 
comparatively few in Virginia up to 1730, but after 
this date they increased rapidly. From 1730 to the 
revolution was the period of the great migration of Scotch- 
Irish Presb}i:erians to the colonies, particularly to Penn- 
sylvania, and from thence south to the back country 
regions of the southern colonies. In Virginia there were 
numerous congregations in the Shenandoah Valley and the 
middle counties of Virginia before 1750. The demand 
for all the toleration allowed dissenters by the English 
and Virginia toleration acts was stimulated by the re- 
ligious movement (1740) known as the Great Awakening. 
This was a great religious revival which spread rapidly 
among the dissenting sects under the preaching of such 
men as Jonathan Edwards, George Whitefield, and 
Samuel Davies. With the growth of the missionary 
spirit numerous itinerant or traveling preachers were sent 
to Virginia by the northern presbyteries, to minister to 
the people living in the sparsely settled regions of middle 
and western Virginia. 

Several factors which contributed to the rapid growth 
of the demand for toleration in Virginia, and the de- 
velopment of the struggle between the established church 
and the dissenters, must now be mentioned. In the first 

186 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

place the general condition of this church was such that 
it did not meet the needs of the new-comers, the majority 
of whom were already of a different faith when they 
arrived in Virginia. Most of the clergy were men of 
inferior ability and were, moreover, generally accused of 
even being lacking in those spiritual and moral qualifica- 
tions expected of this class. The church service and the 
preaching smacked of formalism, and in general neither 
the adherents of this church, nor the clergy for the most 
part, could be called enthusiastic zealous workers, imbued 
with fervent, active religious beliefs. The church had 
taken on an aristocratic aspect, from the nature of its 
government, its subordination to the state and to politi- 
cal control, and the fact that its influential members were 
also members of that planter aristocracy which had de- 
veloped with the slavery system. The clergy and pa- 
rishioners thoroughly believed in the union of church and 
state and were greatly disturbed because of the rise 
of the dissenters and their demands. Moreover, the 
clergy were not only not moved by the Great Awakening, 
but attempted to hinder the progress of this movement. 
They were unable to make an effective appeal to the 
masses of the people even if they had been so inclined. 
On the other hand, the effect of the great revival among 
the dissenters had been to emphasize the emotional, 
direct, fervent appeal and to welcome all classes to their 
churches. The preachers were men of intense, earnest 
natures, who preached the doctrine of direct personal 
communion with God and demanded a real new birth 
and change in the spiritual nature of converts. They 
used the revival, with all its accompanying phenomena, 
to awaken the religious emotions of the masses. Some 
of them violently criticized the clergy of the established 
church both as to their moral and spiritual character 
and their lack of zeal in the work. The early dissenting 

187 



Source Problems in United States History 

churches were organized on democratic principles. The 
classes of people reached were the new-comers, who set- 
tled in the back country regions under frontier condi- 
tions. The spirit of democracy, political, economic, 
social and religious, which the frontier always engenders, 
was rising, and with it, social and economic as well as 
religious dissatisfaction. 

One of the effects of the Great Awakening had been 
to bring about a cleavage in the Presbyterian as well as 
the Baptist church; the former divided into Old Side or 
Old Lights and New Side or New Lights; the latter into 
Regular and Separate Baptists. The reaction from the 
conservatism, rationalism and formalism, which had 
affected all the churches before the revival, had resulted 
in the pendulum swinging to the opposite extreme among 
some of the clergy. They were inclined to great ex- 
travagance in action and speech, and used methods in 
their preaching not approved by the more conservative 
clergymen. The New Side Presbyterian clergymen, 
members of the Synod of New York, gave trouble be- 
cause they insisted on an interpretation of the toleration 
acts and a system of licensing which would allow them 
to itinerate, or preach in any number of different places, 
have any number of congregations under their care 
and hold their services in the older counties where the 
Church of England was already well established, as well 
as in the more distant newly settled countries where there 
were very few adherents of the Church of England. 

Governor Gooch was willing to grant toleration, under 
the acts mentioned, according to his interpretation of 
them. He wished the power of granting licenses to be 
with the General Court of the colony, consisting of the 
Governor and his Council, rather than with the county 
courts as demanded by the New Side Presb}^erian clergy- 
men. He wished to restrict the right of a clergyman to 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

preach, by granting a license to preach only to one or 
a few congregations located entirely in one county, be- 
caUvSe he feared that "itinerating" would result in the 
rapid growth of the Presbyterians, the stirring up of dis- 
cord and schism, and the decay of the established church. 
The Old Side Presbyterians, or members of the vSynod 
of Philadelphia, gave little trouble because of their will- 
ingness to apply for licenses and to confine themselves 
to the congregations and places specified. But the New 
Side clergymen often preached without any license, as 
did the Rev. Mr. Roan, and even vSamuel Davies did not 
confine himself strictly to the places or congregations 
mentioned in his Hcense. 

Religious toleration was in effect granted the Presby- 
terians after 1755 because of the influence of the French 
and Indian War. There was great need of protection 
for the frontiers, and fear as to the religious results if 
the French were victorious. The dissenters were the 
main reliance for warding off the Indian attacks. Ac- 
cordingly the laws ceased to be enforced against the Pres- 
byterians after this date. The breaking out of the strug- 
gle again from 1768 to the revolution, largely confined 
to the Baptists, was due to the extremely radical char- 
acter of the Separate Baptist preachers, and their activity 
in itinerating, preaching without a license and their 
bitter denunciation of the established church. They 
were so zealous and successful in adding to their num- 
bers that the church authorities were alarmed, con- 
sidered them as disturbers of the peace and made a 
vigorous attempt to check the movement by having the 
acts enforced. With the opening of the revolution the 
struggle for toleration developed into a struggle for re- 
ligious liberty. 

The spirit of the revolution demanded the enforcement 
of those well-known principles, that governments derived 

189 



Source Problems in United States History 

their powers from the consent of the go\'erned; that in- 
di\4duals should receive benefits in proportion to taxes 
paid, and should be represented in any bod>' levpng 
taxes; that the freedom of the indi\ddual depended on 
those unalienable rights — the security of life, liberty and 
property, and freedom to think and act as one pleased, 
provided he did not interfere with the rights of his fellow- 
man. The demands for political freedom and equality 
naturally aroused the sentiment for religious freedom 
and equality. But the established church continued to 
exercise its authority to le^^ taxes on dissenters for the 
support of a church they neither believed in nor attended. 
The close relation between political and religious liberal- 
ism is apparent in the docmnents given. They show 
that religious liberty came to be looked upon as a natural, 
inherent and unalienable right; that it was defended 
because otherwise the principles of taxation without 
representation, government without the consent of the 
governed, taxation without benefits received, and the 
principles of equality, justice and reason would all be 
\aolated. 

The struggle for religious liberty is marked by two peri- 
ods. The first extends from 1776 to 1779, including the 
religious liberty clause in the Declaration of Rights and 
the Act of December 5, 1776, the latter repealing the laws 
w^hich interfered with a person's religious opinions, or re- 
quired attendance at the sen^ices of the Church of England, 
or prohibited other modes of worship than the Episcopal. 
But the question was left open, and debated in each 
session of the assembly in the period* 1776 to 1779, as 
to whether a general assessment should not be estab- 
lished by law to compel every one to support the minister 
of his choice, or whether the support of religion should 
be left entirely to voluntary contribution. In 1779 the 
latter principle was affirmed and the establishment of the 

190 



Religious Toleration and i^reedom in Virginia 

Anglican Church aboh'shcfl. The second period, from 
1779 to 1786, is marked mainly by an attempt to sell the 
glebes, or lands which had been granted for the partial 
support of the clergy, to repeal the marriage laws, giving 
the Episcopal clergy the exclusive right to perform a 
legal marriage, to withdraw from the vestries the right 
to levy taxes for the support of the poor and in fact to 
dissolve completely the vestries and Vjring about the 
separation of church and state. Although the act of 
1779 had decided against the principle of a general 
assessment for the support of religion, yet those in favor 
of this plan did not give up the struggle and made an- 
other vigorous attempt, in 1784-85, to pass a bill involving 
this principle. Thus there existed in Virginia up to this 
date only a modified form of religif>us liberty, and the 
vital question of a complete separation of church and 
state was still unanswered. 

Indeed, the liberal imncipleH set forth in the Bill of 
Rights and the act of 1776 were met by a conservative 
reaction in the period of 1777 to 1779 and again in the 
period 1783 to 1785. In fact, throughout this period the 
majorities in the House of Delegates were usually in favor 
of some form of assessment, while the majority of the peo- 
ple were against it. Some of those who had been relieved 
of the payment of taxes for the support of the state church 
were not adverse to having a general assessment for the 
support of religion based on the principle that each per- 
son should declare which religious denomination he fav- 
ored and then be compelled to aid in support of this 
denomination. Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee 
were both in favor of this plan in 1784, largely because 
one of the effects of the war had been to bring about a 
great decline in morals and religion, and this method 
seemed to many to be the best way to check a further 
decline. The principle of a general assessment was op- 

191 



Source Problems in United States History 

posed by Jefferson and Madison from the first. In gen- 
eral the bill was favored by eastern and opposed by the 
extreme western counties. By religious denominations, 
some of the Presbyterians at first appear to have been 
willing to accept a qualified form of assessment, on the 
ground that the assembly was sure to pass some such 
act, but the main body of the church was undoubtedly 
opposed to it. The Baptists were consistently and un- 
qualifiedly opposed. Madison stated in a letter to 
Monroe, April 12, 1785, *'The laity of the other sects 
[than the Episcopal] are generally unanimously on the 
other side." 

The issue involved was in reality the general issue 
which is so prominent in this period, that of the struggle 
between the conservative and liberal forces of society. 
The reaction from the extreme liberal and even radical 
views engendered by the revolution was due to the alarm 
of many of the political leaders, even some of those who 
had been classed as radical previously, because of the 
tendency of the times — the decentralizing forces, and the 
apparent breakdown of the regime of law, order, and the 
older settled ways of society. Democracy was not giv- 
ing a good account of itself and needed curbing, in their 
opinion. The attempt of the more conservative leaders 
to check the liberal movement in religion and set up a 
modified form of church establishment, was due in part 
to a desire to preserve their own power and influence 
and to help them in establishing a more conservative 
government. In part it was due to a desire to check 
the work of the democratic churches, particularly the 
Presbyterians and Baptists, and the influence of their 
adherents in politics and society. It is to be noted that 
practically no protests against the principle of a general 
assessment were made to the legislature from the eastern 
• counties, while very vigorous protests came from the ex- 

192 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

treme western or frontier counties, the home of democ- 
racy. These petitions combine the arguments for reHgious 
and poUtical Hberty and indicate the feeHng of the demo- 
cratic West toward the conservative East — an illustration 
of sectionalism in Virginia. 

On December 2, 1784, the bill entitled a bill for *'es- 
tabHshing a provision for teachers of the Christian re- 
ligion" was introduced. This was in effect a general 
assessment bill under a new name, for it provided for a 
tax upon all taxable property for the support of ministers, 
and each taxpayer was to designate the church which 
should receive this tax. The bill was printed and pub- 
lished in handbills and circulated with the request that 
the people give their opinion respecting its adoption at 
the next session of the Assembly. Between the ending 
of the session and the meeting of the Assembly in October, 
1785, Madison drew up and circulated his famous Me- 
morial and Remonstrance against the bill, in which he 
stated the relations that should exist between the state 
and reHgion. This exerted a great influence against 
assessment. The Presb>'terians and Baptists also drew 
up protests against it, while the Episcopal church favored 
the bill. The Assembly met October 25, 1785, and was 
flooded with petitions mostly in opposition to assessment, 
and the bill died in committee. On December 14th the 
"bill for establishing religious freedom" originally pre- 
pared by Jefferson was brought up and passed the third 
reading December 17th, and finally passed both Houses 
with amendments January 16, 1786. There still remained 
the work of repealing a bill which had incorporated the 
Episcopal church, the abolition of all the vestries, and 
the sale of the glebes, all of which was accomplished 
by 1803. The act of 1786, however, really ended the 
struggle. 

19.3 



Source Problems in United States History 

II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

1. The Statutes at Large, from Magna Charter to . . . 1761, 
edited by Danby Pickering, Vols. IX, XII. (Cambridge, 
1764.) 

2. The Statutes at Large, being a Collection of all the 
Laws of Virginia, i6ig-iyg2, edited by William Walter 
Hening, Vols. Ill, XII. (Philadelphia and Richmond, 
1823.) 

The English Statutes at Large and those of Virginia 
need no special comment. 

3. Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, etc. (Philadelphia, 1904.) 

These are the official records of the meetings of the 
synods of the church and contain ntmierous documents, 
including letters, etc. The charge of Governor Gooch 
to the grand jury is taken from the American Weekly 
Mercury of August, 1745. It is also found, with slight 
variations, in Burk, History of Virginia, Vol. Ill, pp. 
1 19-12 1, taken apparently from the Virginia Gazette of 
April 25, 1745. Governor Gooch was a stickler for the ob- 
servance of the laws and was besides a strict churchman. 

4. The State of Religion among the Protestant Dis- 
senters in Virginia. In a Letter to the Rev. Mr. Joseph 
Bellamy of Bethlem, in New England. From the Reverend 
Mr. Samuel Davies. . . . (Boston, 1751.) 

The extract given is from an account of Samuel Mor- 
ris, an early convert, of -whom Davies says, "Not under- 
standing the calumnies flung upon it [his name] by many 
a person of a forward, sociable spirit," Mr. Davies re- 
quested him to write a narrative recounting the rise and 
progress of the Presbyterians in Virginia. Mr. Davies 
says in his letter to Mr. Bellamy that "this, together with 
the substance of what he and others have told me, I 
shall present to you without any material alterations, 

194 



l\("li!;i(>ns lOlcuiion .iiul I'i((tl«»m iii \iirim.i 

i\\u\ |>(");it>i).ilc lum. Ilio" I i.li.ill iiol t\.u'(l\' U;.r 1\»;; woid:. " 
'rijis cxtr.ul m.i\ .il:;t» Im- loniul tii / /»»* (,'ttHit .\i<'tlhfnnn[, 

l)v lo;u«|»li Trucy, pp. ^^8t-03. 

', >/,<•/< //f-v ('/' r/rr/';//".r, ///'v/.v/. .;/ ./;/./ /w. >)7. (/•//;, .i/. l»v 
Willi. iin llrinv I'<«'l<" i riul.ul.li .In... i.S.,.. ) 

I'ooir prnil;: miiiici oiis IcMci;; «•! ,' '..iiiuicl l>;»\i«':; ;iii»l 
olluT l'iX';;l>\ icnan cln);yiurn. .»•; \\<ll .r; iiirm«>ri;il,'; nf 

(In- «-..n\*m\ti(m8 of the ProKl)y(rM.ni ilnii.ii 

() H isti'fii ill I '.*//«*< 7/'<»>/s ft'hitifti' {,< till- \niithiiii ( .'l,<>ii\il 
i'hiinli, r,lilc.l l)\ Willi. nil SlcNrii;; l'(ii\. \'..| I \'ir. 
j'iiu.i. (I i.ii II. .1,1. 1.^;;.. ) 

l\Mry piinl;; .1 l.iii;*" miiiil.cr oj Irlln;: wliirli |i.i:;;;(mI 
botwecn Mm- Ui;.lio|. <.| l,..n.l..n, lim ft^piH'Snil .il i\ «• in Vil*- 
j'l'ul.i. ;in»l « >l lici (.1 M'ln.il tl« .cinncnl :; Immi iiir on I lie lii:;lni'vr 
{)[ llic cImiicIi III V'nrini.i TIm- I<M«i:; );i\(ii ilhi:;| r.-ilo 
lli<- Icii- ..I IIk- r.i'.lu.p .111(1 Ins .l.|,nl \ lli.il llw ( 'Inn. Ii 
ol I'jii'I.iikI woiiM <l<(lni<' iinl«-/; •.•.inr nuMir; («.nM Uo 
lolllld I.. r\\i-i\: llir };i..\vlli ..I llic I'm .1 .\ I rn.nr; 

'/. /(>inihil\ I'l ///(' lli>ii\i- (>/ /.'h/ »;<\'.r\ <>/ \ iiriiihi, r.lilr.l 
l>y Jolin r<n(ll(l < >ri i\(nn«(l\, vnlniiM:; l<»i i^(.(. i ;<><). 
1770='17V-*. "'/'/. ^ '/V^' (IvK Innon.l. 1.)...,, i.>. -r. ) 

S. Ii'/r iiihl ( 'i>ni\fu>iiil,n,i- ,'/ i.i-.'in- l\l,r,,>n, \>\ KaIc 
M.i:;..n k<.\vl.n..l. \'<.l I I Nrw \'..il.. 1 .Sg • ) 

'I'Ik- <1i.iII. (.1 Tlir I )(•( l.n.ilK.n oj l< i^;|il,s wa;; lin>:rlv Mio 
vvoi k ol ( i<(H)'<" M.i;;<»n. 'IIh- ;ii I i( Ir nil irlifMcm \vii;i |>i<- 
.•;<-iil,<-<| |»y ;i <oiiiiiiil l<<- l«> IIm- <«.ii\(iihon .r; f'i\'<n 

i) III,- \\nliiir\ <>l hnnr: A/r/.// -.,.//. r.lilr.l |»v <'..nll.n.I 
llinil. Vol:; I. II (N<w \oil.;, i.j.,.,. ..;..i ) 

Tlic vviiliii)"; (A M.'Mli;:*.!! incd n.* .im-. i.il <<.iniiMnl 

I.) I III' I 'k>< irdiiif's 0/ tlir ( oiiviiihoii <>l I 'ilifiilf. luil iit 
lln- ( d/'ilol, rl( ., M:\\ , i'/'/(t ( K'(| .iinl.rd, K* m hin. .ii.l, 1 ;■'. 1 r» ) 

Nn ;.|)((i.il (•(tinnM'iil r; iicrdcd 

II. /oiinnil of llir llt>n\r of I ftltynlr', 0/ \'iiyniin ///^', 

r/y/. (Kicliiiinii.l. y\-\rj, i.H..;-'. ) 

No :,|)<'(i;il ( .MiiincnI. i:; iirr(|cd, 
II "-'.^ 



Source Problems in United States History 

12. TJic Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by Paid 
Leicester Ford, Vol. I. (New York, 1892.) 

This extract is from the autobiography of Jefferson, 
prepared after 1809. 

13. Separation of Church and State in Virginia, by H. 
J. Eckenrode. Virginia State Library, Special Report 
of the Department of Archives and History. (Rich- 
mond, 1 9 10.) 

Mr. Eckenrode prints in this volume a nimiber of pe- 
titions from the manuscripts in the Virginia State Library. 

14. A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists 
in Virginia, by Robert B. Semple. (Richmond, iSio.) 



III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

A. Religious Toleration in Virginia, 1689-1776 

1. What conditions were prescribed by the English toleration 

act of 1689, to enable dissenting persons and preachers 
to assemble for religious worship and preaching? 

2. What conditions were prescribed by the Virginia toleration 

act of 169Q? Just what portion of the English act seems 
to be incorporated in the Virginia act? What is 
omitted? Does the phrase ''according to one act of 
parliament" have in your opinion the effect of incor- 
porating the English act entire into the Virginia laws? 

3. What advantages did the dissenters gain by the explanatory 

act of 171 1? In the light of this act do you infer 
that the act of i68q confined the preacher to only one 
congregation? Would this act have any effect on 
Virginia law, since it was not specifically incorporated 
into such law? 

4. In the light of these three acts what difterent views might 

be held respecting the extent of toleration to be granted 
in Virginia, the exact method to be employed in grant- 
ing it, and the number of places or congregations which 
a preacher might minister to? 
196 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

5. If you judge that the act of 1689 was incorporated into tlie 

Virginia law by reference, how far would difference 
in environment, or other conditions, warrant a dif- 
ferent interpretation or procedure than that practised 
in England? 

6. On what conditions was Governor Gooch willing to grant 

permission to the clergymen of the Synod of Phila- 
delphia to preach? Is there any significance in the 
phrase "western-side of our great mountains" in con- 
nection with his promise of toleration? Why? 

7. What does he mean by the phrase "professing themselves 

ministers under the pretended influence of new light," 
etc.? (See historical introduction.) 

8. What is his principal fear respecting the effects of the " new 

lights" on the religious condition of the colony? 

9. What complaints does he make concerning the practices 

and teachings of certain dissenting clergymen? Sup- 
posing his statements were true, would he be justified 
in preventing them from preaching, according to the 
toleration acts? 

10. What distinction does he have in mind in the phrases 

"liberty of conscience" and "freedom of speech"? 

11. What "covenant" was intended according to the governor? 

Do you agree? Would "speaking all manner of evil 
against us" be sufficient reason for denying a dissent- 
ing preacher a license? 

12. What distinction does he make in the characters of the 

New Side and Old Side clergy of the Presbyterian 
Church? 

13. What is the significance of the "itinerant preachers" as 

compared with those preaching in "some certain place 
appropriated for that purpose"? What interpretation 
of the toleration act does Governor Gooch have? ])o 
you agree with it? 

14. What does Mr. Morris admit concerning the preaching of 

Rev. Mr. Roan? What does he deny? Do you infer 
that he had a license to preach? 

15. Compare the evidence concerning the accusations against 

197 



Source Problems in United States History 

Mr. Roan as given in the grand jury indictment with the 
account given by Morris. What inference do you draw- 
on the merits of the question so far as this evidence goes? 

1 6. Supposing the words attributed to Mr. Roan in the indict- 

ments were actually spoken by him, was he within 
his rights under the toleration acts? Why? 

17. What is your view of the relation between toleration and 

freedom of speech? Are they identical? Do the tolera- 
tion acts indicate any difference? 

18. What was the reason for, and effect of, the plan of licensing 

dissenters by the General Court rather than the County 
Court? Was the change in agreement with the tolera- 
tion acts? Would you justify the change? Why? How 
was the General Court made up? See documents 8, 11, 
18 and 20. 

19. Do the governor's instructions supplement or change in any 

way the natural interpretation of the toleration acts? 

20. Do you think that in granting Mr. Davies a license to 

preach in seven meeting-houses in five counties the 
General Court granted him a less or greater indulgence 
than the toleration acts intended? 

21. What does Mr. Dawson fear will be the result of such a 

practice? Do you agree with him? 

22. What was the argument of Mr. Davies for an eighth meet- 

ing-house? 

23. If he had complied with all the requirements of the act 

what reason would there be for accusing him of pro- 
moting ''Schism"? 

24. State the Bishop of London's interpretation of the tolera- 

tion act of 1689. Do you agree that the "clause in 
the loth of Queen Anne" {viz., the act of 171 1 docu- 
ment No. 3) proves his interpretation? Do you agree 
that the toleration act did not allow the dissenters to 
set up "itinerant preachers"? Why? 

25. Do you consider the Bishop of London's accusation of 

Davies fair — viz., that he was "labouring to disturb 
the consciences of others"? 

26. Was Governor Dinwiddle justified in refusing Mr. Davies 

198 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

another license for the reasons stated? Why? Are 
they in accordance with the toleration acts? Why? 

27. Criticize favorably or unfavorably the argument of the 

clergy against Mr. Davies. 

28. Do you agree with Mr. Davies that the English toleration 

act was ''received into the body of the Virginia laws 
by our Legislature"? What does he say is the main 
point at issue? 

29. Classify the arguments of Davies that are based strictly 

on the toleration acts and those that are based on the 
special conditions existing in Virginia. 

30. Was ''itinerating" illegal under the acts of toleration? 

Give the arguments for and against this view. 

31. Is the parallel of the ''chapels of ease" of the Church of 

England a valid one? Why? 

32. State the interpretation given by Davies of the toleration 

act. Compare it with that of the Bishop of London. 
Which do you favor? Why? 
^:^. Is Davies consistent in his assertion that the clause in the 
"loth of Queen Anne" (act of 171 1) extends to Vir- 
ginia, though not actually incorporated into the Vir- 
ginia laws, while the act of 1689 "does not extend 
hither by virtue of its primitive enaction," etc.? How 
then do you account for his views? 

34. Do you agree with the argument of Davies in defense of 

members of the Church of England joining the Pres- 
byterians? 

35. Is Mr. Dawson's interpretation of the clause in the loth 

of Queen Anne a good one? 

36. Note the list of eleven distinct questions which Davies asks 

the Bishop of London. Answer each of them: (i) 
according to the arguments of the Bishop of London, 
Commissary Dawson, Governors Gooch and Dinwiddic, 
and the clergy of the established church. (2) Accord- 
ing to the arguments of Davies. (3) According to your 
own interpretation. 

37. In each case which depend (i) directly on the toleration 

acts; (2) indirectly or by inference; (3) neither 
199 



Source Problems In United States History 

directly nor indirectly? (4) Which exhibit prejudice 
or bias? (5) Which depend on differences in environ- 
ment or religious conditions, or on the officials who 
were responsible for the enforcement of the acts? 

38. What objection do the Baptists have to the granting of 

licenses by the General Court rather than the County 
Court? 

39. State Madison's view of the status of toleration in 1774 

with reasons. 



B. Questions on Religious Liberty in Virginia, 1 7 76-1 786 

1. Compare the article on religion in the Declaration of Rights 

as presented to the committee with the same as 
amended by the convention. What difference do you 
note? What is its significance? Why should the 
term "toleration" have been omitted in the amended 
article? 

2. Did this article completely separate church and ' state? 

Why? 

3. What religious privileges were still lacking after the adoption 

of the Declaration of Rights, according to the petition 
of the Baptists of Prince William County? 

4. What additional grievances are mentioned in the memorial 

of the Presbytery of Hanover? Are these ''national 
rights" as stated? Why? 

5. What objection is offered to the establishment of any 

religion? 

6. State the arguments in favor of establishment as given in 

the memorial of the clergy. What particular advan- 
tages are claimed for the English established church? 

7. Is it true that this church had "shown no disposition to 

restrain them [dissenters] in the exercise of their 
religion"? 

8. What was accomplished, according to Jefferson, by the act 

of December 5, 1776? What was left unsettled? 

9. What arguments are given in the petitions from Caroline 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

County in favor of a general assessment? Do you 
agree with any of them? Give your reasons. Are you 
opposed to any? Give reasons. 

10. What did the inhabitants of Essex County hope for from a 

general assessment for religious purposes? Do you 
agree? Why? 

11. Do you agree with the argument given in the petition from 

Amelia County that every man should "contribute as 
well to the support of Religion, as that of Civil Gov- 
ernment ' ' ? Why ? 

12. Give a summary of the arguments, as stated in the petition 

for Rockingham County, against the control of religion 
by legislative bodies. Compare with those already 
given in favor of the same. 

13. Is sufficient proof offered that religion would not fail if un- 

supported by a tax or contribution? 

14. State the argument of the convention of the Presbyterian 

Church of the relation between legislative bodies and 
religion. Do you agree? Why? 

15. What additional arguments are given against a general 

assessment? Do they all seem valid to you? 

16. Do the Baptists add any new argument against assessment? 

17. Summarize the arguments of Madison against the bill for 

"establishing a provision for teachers of the Christian 
religion." Do you agree with his statements regarding 
the rights of the majority and minority of the legis- 
lature? Which of Madison's arguments do not appeal 
to you? Why? 

18. What arguments does Madison give for religious liberty 

that appear to grow out of the arguments for political 
liberty? Do you agree that the right to religious 
liberty is held "by the same tenure with all our other 
rights"? 

19. What are the Hmits to the power of legislative bodies, ac- 

cording to Madison? Why? 

20. Trace the evolution of religious liberty from the article in 

the Declaration of Rights to the preamble of the bill 
of December 17, 1785. 

201 



1 



IV. The Sources 
PART A 

RELIGIOUS TOLERATION IN VIRGINIA, 1689-1776 

I . The Statutes at Large, from Magna Charter to . . . 
iy6i, by Danby Pickering, Vol. IX. 

Pages 19-25. [The Act of Toleration, 1689.] 

An act for exempting their Majesties pro test ant 
subjects, dissenting from the church of England, 
from the penalties of certain laws. 

Forasmuch as some ease to scrupulous consciences 
in the exercise of religion may be an effectual means 
to unite their Majesties protestant subjects in in- 
terest and affection: 

Be it enacted . . . That . . . any person or per- 
sons dissenting from the Church of England, that 
shall take the oaths mentioned . . . and shall make 
and subscribe the declaration mentioned^ . . . [shall 
be freed from attendance at the parish church and 
penalties attached]. . . . 

Provided always, That nothing herein contained 

^ For character of oaths, declaration, etc., see document Nq. il 
belovv, 

?Q3 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

shall be construed to exempt any of the persons 
aforesaid from paying of tythes or other parochial 
duties, or any other duties to the church or minister, 
. . . [and] any preacher or teacher of any congrega- 

5 tion of dissenting protest ants, that shall make and 
subscribe the declaration aforesaid, and take the 
said oaths . . . and shall also declare his approbation 
of and subscribe the articles of religion mentioned^ 
[shall not be liable to any of the penalties men- 

10 tioned], . . . for officiating in any congregation 
for the exercise of religion permitted and allowed by 
this act . . . Provided . . . That all the laws made and 
provided for the frequenting of divine service on 
the Lord's day commonly called Sunday, shall be 

IS still in force, and executed against all persons 
that offend against the said laws, except such per- 
sons come to some congregation or assembly of 
religious worship, allowed or permitted by this act. 
, . . Provided always, That no congregation or as- 

20 sembly for religious worship shall be permitted or 
allowed by this act, until the place of such meeting 
shall be certified to the bishop of the diocese or 
to the arch deacon ... or to the justices of the peace 
at the general or quarter sessions of the peace for 

25 the county, city, or place in which such meeting 
shall be held. . . . 

^ Exceptions were made of certain of the articles distasteful to 
dissenters, particularly to Baptists and Quakers. Papists were not 
included in the act. 

203 



Source Problems in United States History 

2. The Statutes at Large, being a Collection of all the 

Laws of Virginia {i6iQ-i7g2), by W. W. 
Hening, Vol. III. [The Virginia Toleration 
Act, 1699.] 
5 Page 171. 

. . . Provided alwayes, that if any person or per- 
sons dissenting from the church of England being 
every way qualified according to one act of parlia- 
ment^ . . . shall resort and meet at any congregation 
10 or place of religious worship permitted and allowed 
by the said act of Parliament once in two months 
that then the said penaltyes and forfeitures imposed 
by the act for neglecting or refuseing to resort to 
their parrish church or chappel as aforesaid shall not 
IS be taken to extend to such person or persons, any- 
thing in this act to the contrary notwithstanding. ^ 

3. The Statutes at Large from Magna Charter, etc. 

Vol. XII. [An Act for Preserving the Prot- 
estant Religion, 171 1.] 
20 Page 280. 

. . . And whereas it is or may be doubted whether 
a preacher or teacher of any congregation of dis- 
senting protestants, duly in all respects quaHfied 
according to the said act, be allowed, by virtue of 
25 the said act, to officiate in any congregation in any 
county, other than that in which he so qualified 
himself, although in a congregation or place of 

^ That is the Toleration Act of 1689. 

^ This act does not specifically mention dissenting ministers. 

204 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

meeting duly certified and registered as is required 
by the said act; be it declared and enacted by the 
authority of the aforesaid, That any such preacher 
or teacher, so duly qualified according to the said 
5 act shall be and is hereby allowed to officiate in any 
congregation, although the same be not in the 
county wherein he was so quahfied; provided the 
said congregation, or place of meeting hath been 
before such officiating, duly certified and registred 

10 or recorded according to the said act: and such 
preacher or teacher, shall, if required, produce a 
certificate of his having so qualified himself, under 
the hand of the clerk of the peace for the county 
or place where he so qualified himself, which certif- 

15 icate such clerk of the peace is hereby required to 
make; and shall also before any justice of the peace 
of such county or place where he shall so officiate, 
make, and subscribe such declaration, and take such 
oaths as are mentioned in the said act, if thereunto 

20 required. 

4. Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United 
States of America, etc. [Letter of Governor 
Gooch to the Synod of Philadelphia, re- 
corded May 28, 1739.] 

25 Page 147. 

Sir: By the hands of Mr. Anderson I received 
an address signed by you, in the name of your 
brethren of the Synod of Philadelphia. And as I 
have been always inclined to favour the people who 

205 



Source Problems in United States History 

have lately removed from other provinces, to settle 
on the western side of our great mountains ; so you 
may be assured, that no interruption shall be given 
to any minister of your profession who shall come 

s among them, so as they conform themselves to the 
rules prescribed by the act of toleration in Eng- 
land, by taking the oaths enjoined thereby, and 
registering the places of their meeting, and behave 
themselves peaceably towards the government. 

10 This you may please to communicate to the Synod 
as an answer of theirs. Your most humble servant.^ 

William Gooch. 
5. Records of the Presbyterian Church, etc. [Charge 
of Governor Gooch to the Grand Jury of 

IS the General Court of Virginia, April 18, 

1745.] 
Pages 182-183. 

[Gentlemen of the Grand Jury], . . . Without tak- 
ing any notice of the ordinary matters and things you 
20 are called to attend, and sworn to make inquisition 
for, I must, on this occasion, turn to your thoughts 
and recommend to your present service, another 
subject of great importance, which, I thank God, has 
been unusual, but I hope^will be most effectual; I 

25 ^ This letter is in answer to a request May 28, 1738, from the 
Synod of Philadelphia, representing the Old Side branch* of the 
church, asking that settlers of the Presbyterian faith about to 
settle in the "remote parts of your government" be allowed "the 
liberty of their consciences, and of worshipping God in a way agree- 

30 able to the principles of their education." Ibid., p. 142. 

206 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

mean the information I have received of certain 
false teachers that are lately crept into this govern- 
ment ; who, without orders or licenses, or producing 
any testimonial of their education or sect, pro- 
s fessing themselves ministers under the pretended 
influence of new light, extraordinary impulse, and 
such like fanatical and enthusiastical knowledge, 
lead the innocent and ignorant people into all kinds 
of delusion; and in this frantic and profane dis- 

lo guise, though such is their heterodoxy, that they 
treat all other modes of worship with the utmost 
scorn and contempt, yet, as if they had bound them- 
selves by an oath to do many things against the 
religion of the blessed Jesus, that pillar and stay 

IS of the truth, our reformed church, to the great dis- 
honour of Almighty God, and the discomfort of 
serious Christians, they endeavour to make their 
followers believe that salvation is not to be ob- 
tained in her communion. 

20 As this denunciation, and, if I am rightly advised, in ^ 
words not decent to repeat, has been by one of them 
publicly affirmed, and shows what manner of spirit 
they all of them are of, in a country hitherto remark- 
able for uniformity in worship, and where the sav- 

25 ing truths of the Gospel are constantly inculcated; 
I did promise myself, that either their preaching 
would be in vain, or that an insolence so criminal 
would not long be connived at. 

1 That we worship the devil, and are damned. 
207 



Source Problems in United States History 

And therefore, gentlemen, since the workers of a 
deceitful work, blaspheming our sacraments, and 
reviling our excellent liturgy, are said to draw dis- 
ciples after them, and we know not whereunto this 

5 separation may grow, but may easily foretell into 
what a distracted condition, by longer forbearance, 
this colony will be reduced; we are called upon by 
the rights of society, and what I am persuaded will 
be with you at least as prevailing an inducement, 

lo by the principles of Christianity, to put an immedi- 
ate stop to the devices and intrigues of these asso- 
ciated schismatics; who having, no doubt, assumed 
to themselves the apostasy of our weak brethren, 
we may be assured there is not anything so absurd 

15 but what they will assert, nor any doctrines or pre- 
cepts so sacred but what they will pervert and ac- 
commodate to their favourite theme, railing ' against 
our religious establishment, for which in any other 
country, the British dominions only excepted, they 

20 would be very severely handled. 

However, not meaning to inflame your resent- 
ment as we may, without breach of charity, pro- 
nounce, that it is not liberty of conscience, but free- 
dom of speech, they so earnestly prosecute; and we 

25 are very sure that they have no manner of pretence 
to any shelter under the acts of toleration, because, 
admitting they have had regular ordination, they 
are by these acts obliged, nor can they be ignorant 
of it, not only to take the oaths, and with the test 

208 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

to subscribe, after a deliberate reading of them, 
some of the articles of our religion, before they pre- 
sume to officiate, but, that in this indulgent grant, 
though not expressed, a covenant is intended, 

5 whereby they engage to preserve the character 
of conscientious men, and not to use their liberty 
for a cloak of maliciousness. 

So that I say, allowing their ordination, yet, as 
they have not, by submitting to these essential 

10 points, qualified themselves to gather a congrega- 
tion, or, if they had, in speaking all manner of evil 
against us, have forfeited the privilege due to such 
compliance, insomuch that they are entirely with- 
out excuse, and their religious profession is very justly 

IS suspected to be the result of Jesuitical policy, which 
also is an iniquity to be punished by the judges. 

I must, as in duty bound to God and man, charge 
you in the most solemn manner, to make strict in- 
quiry after these seducers; and if they or any of 

20 them are still in the government, by presentment or 
indictment, to report them to the court, that we, 
who are in authority under the Defender of our 
Faith, and the appointed guardians to our con- 
stitution in church and state, exercising our power 

25 in this respect for the protection of the people com- 
mitted to our care, may show our zeal in the main- 
tenance of the true reUgion; not as the manner of 
some is, by violent oppression, but in putting to 
silence by such method as our laws direct, the calum- 

209 



Source Problems in United States History 

nies and invectives of these bold accusers, and in 
dispelling, as we are devoutly disposed, so dreadful 
and dangerous a combination. 

In short, gentlemen, we should deviate from the 
5 pious path we profess to tread in, and should be 
unjust to God, to our king, to our country, to our- 
selves, and to our posterity, not to take cognizance 
of so great wickedness, whereby the grace of our 
Lord Jesus Christ is turned into lasciviousness. 
10 6. Records of the Presbyterian Church, etc. [Minutes 
of the Synod of Philadelphia, May 27, 1745.] 
Pages I 81-182. 

A letter from a gentleman in Virginia, with a 
printed charge given by the governor of that colony 
IS to the grand jury, was laid before the Synod; by 
which it appears that the government of that colony 
is highly provoked by the conduct of some of the 
new party who have preached there, and therefore 
the Synod judge it necessary to send an address to 
20 that governor, informing him of the distinction be- 
tween this Synod and that separated party, that so 
their conduct may not be imputed to us, nor pro- 
voke that government to deny us the liberties and 
favours we have enjoyed under it. . , ^ 
25 7. Records of the Presbyterian Church, etc. [Gover- 
nor Gooch to the Synod of Philadelphia, 
June 20, 1745.] 

^ Instructions to Governor Gooch provided for toleration. For 
an extract from these instructions see document No. ip below. 

?I9 



I 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

Page 185. 

Gentlemen: — ^The address you were pleased to 
send me as a grateful acknowledgment for the 
favour which teachers of your persuasion met with 
5 in Virginia, was very acceptable to me, but alto- 
gether needless to a person in my station, because 
it is what by law they are entitled to. 

And in answer to your present address, intended 
to justify yourselves and members from being con- 

10 cerned in a late outrage committed against the 
purity of our worship, and the sacred appointment 
of pastors for the services of the altar of the estab- 
lished church, which some men calling themselves 
ministers, were justly accused of in my charge to 

IS the grand jury, you must suffer me to say, that it 
very nearly aft'ects me, because it seems to insinuate 
as if I was so uncharitable as to suspect men of. 
your education and profession could be guilty of 
unchristian expressions that can only tend to the 

20 increase of schism and irreligion, which I give you 
my word was far from my thoughts. 

As the wicked and destructive doctrines and prac- 
tices of itinerant preachers ought to be opposed and 
suppressed by all who have concern for religion, and 

25 just regard to public peace and order in church and 
state, so your missionaries producing proper testi- 
monials, complying with the laws, and performing 
divine service in some certain place appropriated 
for that purpose, without disturbing the quiet and 

211 



Source Problems in United States History 

unity of our sacred and civil establishments, may 
be sure of the protection of, Reverend Sirs, your 
most humble servant, 

William Gooch. 
5 8. The State of Religion among the Protestant Dis- 
senters in Virginia, etc., by Samuel Davies. 
[The account of Samuel Morris respecting 
the early religious history of the Presbyteri- 
ans in Virginia, about 1745-] 
10 Pages 14-15- 

. . . Some Time after this, the Rev. Mr. John Roan 
was sent by the Presbytery of Newcastle, (under 
whose immediate care we had voluntarily placed our- 
selves) to supply us. He continued with us longer 
IS than either of the former ; and the happy Effects of his 
Ministrations are still apparent, in many Instances. 
. He preached at sundry Places at the earnest Solici- 
tations of the People, which was the happy Occasion 
of beginning and promoting the religious Concern, 
20 where there were little Appearances of it before. 
This, together with his speaking pretty freely about 
the Degeneracy of the Clergy in this Colony, gave 
a general Alarm, and some Measures were concerted 
to suppress us. To incense the Indignation of the 
25 government the more, a perfidious Wretch deposed, 
he heard Mr. Roan use some blasphemous Expres- 
sions in his Sermon, and speak in the most shocking 
& reproachful manner of the established Church. 
An indictment was thereupon drawn up against 

?T2 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

Mr. Roan, (tho' by that Time he had departed the 
Colony,) and some of the People who had invited 
him to preach at their Houses, were cited to appear 
before the General Court, (which, in this Govern- 
5 ment, consists of the Governour or Commander-in- 
Chief, and His Majesty's Council,) and two of them 
were fined twenty shillings sterling, besides the Costs, 
which in one of the Cases would have amounted 
to near fifty Pounds, had the Evidences demanded 

lo their Due. While my Cause was upon Trial, I 
had Reason to re Joyce that the Throne of Grace is 
accessible in all Places, and that helpless Creatures 
can waft up their Desires unseen, to God, in the 
midst of a Crowd. Six Evidences were cited to 

15 prove the Indictment against Mr. Roan; but their 
Depositions were in his Favour; and as for the 
Evidence mentioned just now, who^ accused him of 
Blasphemy against God and the Church, when he 
heard of Messirs G. Tennenfs and 5. Finley's Arrival, 

20 he fled, and has not returned since; so that the 
Indictment was drop'd. I had Reason to fear being 
banished the Colony, and all Circumstances seem'd 
to threaten the Extirpation of Religion among the 
Dissenters in these Parts. 

25 9. Sketches of Virginia, Historical and Biographical, 
by William Henry Foote. [Presentment of 
the Grand Jury of the General Court of 
Virginia, April 19, 1745-] 

' Probably James Axff)nl, mentioned in the next document. 
213 



Source Problems in United States History 

Pages 137-13S. 

. . . We, the Grand Jury, on information of James 
Axford, do present John Roan for reflecting upon 
and vilifying the Estabhshed ReHgion, in divers ser- 
5 mons, which he preached at the house of Joshua 
Morris, in the parish and county of James City, on 
the 7th, 8th, and gth of January last, before a 
numerous audience, in the words following, to wit, — 
'At church you pray to the DeviV — and 'That your 
10 good works damn yoti, and carry you to hell/ — * That 
all your ministers preach false doctrine, and that they, 
and all who follow them, are going to hell,' — and ' The 
church is the house of the Devil, — that when your minis- 
ters receive their orders they swear that it is the spirit 
15 of God that moves them to it, but it is the spirit 
of the Devil, and no good can proceed out of their 
mouth.' 

On the information of Benjamin Cocke, we pre- 
sent Thomas Watkins, the 'son of Edward Wat- 
20 kins, of the parish and county of Henrico, for re- 
flecting on the Established Religion, on the 12th 
of this instant, by saying, — 'your churches and 
chappels are no better than the synagogues of 
Satan.' 
25 10. Historical Collections relating to the American 
Colonial Church, by William Stevens Perry, 
Vol. I — Virginia. [William Dawson, Commis- 
sary of Virginia, to the Bishop of London, 
July 27, 1750.] 

214 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

Page 366. 
My Lord, 

. . . Seven meeting houses situated in 5 counties 
have been hcenced by the General Court for M^ 
5 Samuel Davies. In these counties there are eight 
ministers of the estabhshed Church. The Justices 
of New Kent County lately granted him a license 
to have a meeting House in St. Peter's parish, but 
their order has been superseded by the General 

'^> Court, it being judged that this affair is not within 
the jurisdiction of County Courts. The Instruc- 
tion alluded to in the answer of Peyton Randolph, 
Esq^ Attorney general of Virginia, to the first 
Question is as follows : * ' You are to permit a liberty 

15 of Conscience to all persons except jjajjists, so they 
be contented with a quiet and peacable enjoyment 
of the same, not giving offence or scandal to the 
Government."^ I earnestly request the favour of 
your Lordship's opinion, Whether in licensing so 

20 many houses for one teacher they have not granted 
him greater indulgence than either the King's in- 
struction, or the Act of toleration intended? It is 
not to be dissembled that several of the laity, as 
well as Clergy are uneasy on account of the counte- 

25 nance and encouragement he has met with, and I 
cannot forbear expressing my own concern to see 

^ This quotation refers to the instructions given by the King to 
the Governor of Virginia respecting religious toleration, and supple- 
ments the toleration acts of England and Virginia given above in 
30 documents Nos. 1,2, and 3. 

2 is; 



Source Problems in United States History 

Schism spreading itself through a colony which has 
been famous for uniformity of Religion. 
II. Historical Collections, etc. [Samuel Davies to 
Dr. Doddridge,^ October 2, 1750.] 

5 Pages 370-371. 

. . . But it has been an unhappiness to lie under 
the odium of the Government and Clergy as incen- 
diaries and promoters of Schism, and sundry meas- 
ures have been and still are pursued to restrain and 

10 suppress us. Sundry of the people have been in- 
dicted and fined and tho' our side are willing to com- 
ply with the act of Toleration (as I have actually 
done), yet the Government under a variety of 
Umbrages has endeavored to infringe upon my 

xs Liberties and to exclude my Brethren from settling 
here. It has been alleged that the act of tolleration 
does not extend to this Colony (tho' by the by our 
Legislature has expressly adopted it so far at least 
as to exempt Protestant Dissenters from penalty 

20 for absenting themselves from Church), and the 
Counsel have lately determined that a dissenting 
Minister has no right to more meeting houses than 
one, in consequence of which they have superseded 
a License granted by a County Court for an Eighth 

25 Meeting house amongst a number of people that 
live 20 or 30 Miles distant from the nearest of the 
seven Meeting houses formerly Licensed by the 

^ Dr. Doddridge was a prominent Presbyterian clergyman in Lon- 
don who was favorable to the cause of toleration in Virginia. 

216 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

General Court, and I fear will confine me entirely 
to one ; which will be an intolerable hardship to the 
people, as they are so dispersed that they can not 
convene at one place. I should be glad. Sir, to have 
s your sentiments on this point, and particularly that 
you would inform me whether a dissenting Minister 
is tollerated with you to have more Meeting houses 
than one in case the bounds of his congregation 
require it. . . . To qualify you to interceed for us, I 

10 would further observe, that we claim no other liber- 
ties than those granted by the act of toleration and 
those only upon our compliance with all its require- 
ments that all our Ministers attest their Orthodoxy 
by subscribing to the West-Minster Confession of 

IS Faith and Catechism at their Licensure & Ordina- 
tion and such of the articles of the Church of Eng- 
land as that act imposes on us when we settle in 
this Colony; that we attest our Loyalty by taking 
the usual Oaths to His Majesty's person and Gov- 

20 ernment, and by all other public and private methods 
that belong to our province; and that our very 
enemy don't pretend to impeach us of any practical 
immorality. 
12. Sketches of Virginia, etc. [Bishop of London to 

25 (William Dawson?), December 25, 1750.] 

Page 177. 
> •. . . As to the Davies' case, as far as I can judge, 
your Attorney General is quite in the right, for the 
Act of Toleration confines the preachers to a par- 

217 



Source Problems in United States History 

ticular place, to be certified and entered, and so the 
practice here has been; and it was so far admitted 
to be the case that the Dissenters obtained a clause 
in the loth of Queen Anne, to empower any dissent- 
5 ing minister to preach occasionally in any other 
county but that where he was licensed. I observe 
in one of the licenses, (a copy of which you sent me) 
Davies is permitted to assemble, &c., at several 
meeting-houses to be erected on the lands of Joseph 

10 Shelton, &c.. Now, the Act of Toleration requires 
that the places of meeting shall be certified and 
registered, but how houses that are not in being can 
be certified and registered, I can't understand. The 
Act of Toleration was intended to permit the Dis- 

15 senters to worship in their own way, and to exempt 
them from penalties, but it never was intended to 
permit them to set up itinerant preachers, to gather 
congregations where there was none before. They 
are, by the act of William and Mary, to qualify in 

2o the county where they live, and how Davies can be 
said to live in five different counties, they who 
granted the license must explain. 
13. Historical Collections, etc. [Bishop of London 
to Dr. Doddridge, May 11, 1751.] 

25 Page 372. 

... If you suppose the Church of England to be 
(which I am persuaded you do not), in the same state 
of corruption as the Romish church was at the time 
of the Reformation, there wants indeed no Licence, 

218 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

or authority from the Government to justify the 
methods of conversion which M^ Davies is pur- 
suing; and which the Methodists now do, and long 
have pursued. But if the Act of Toleration, was 
5 desired for no other view, than to ease the con- 
sciences of those who could not conform, — if it was 
granted with no other view, how is M^ Davies 's 
conduct to be justified, who under the colour of a 
Toleration to his own conscience is labouring to 

10 disturb the consciences of- others, and the peace of 
a Church acknowledged to be a true Church 
of Christ? He came 300 Miles from home, 
not to serve people who had scruples, but to a 
Country where the Church of England had been 

IS Established from its first plantation, [viz. Hanover 
County] and where there were not above 4 or 5 dis- 
senters within 100 Miles of it, if not above six years 
ago. M*^ Davies says, in his letter to you, 'We claim 
no other liberties than those granted by the act of 

20 Toleration,' so that the state of the question is 
admitted, on both sides, to be this: how far the 
act of Toleration will justify M- Davies, in taking 
upon himself to be an itinerant preacher and travel- 
ling over many Counties to make Converts, in a 

25 Country too where till very lately there was not 
a Dissenter from the Church of England? 
14. Historical Collections, etc. [Governor Robert 
Dinwiddie to the Bishop of London, June 

5. 1752.] 

?i9 



Source Problems in United States History 

Pages 395-396. 

. . . There is another affair that has given me much 
trouble. My Lord, when I left this Colony about 
six years ago there were no Dissenting Meeting 

5 Houses, but a few Quakers. One M^ Davis a dis- 
senting Teacher from Pennsylvania has been in- 
dulged with Licences for seven Meeting houses in 
five different counties at least in extent upwards of 
200 Miles. He applied to me for a Licence for 

10 one more which T refused, and that brought on a 
long conference with him. I told him I thought 
it impossible for him to discharge the duties of a good 
pastor to so many different congregations dispersed 
at so great a distance one from the other. I took 

IS upon me to tell him what I conceived to be the 
duty of a Minister, and that in a particular and 
plain manner, and that as he did not discharge these 
duties, which I conceived he could not do without 
a close residence with his hearers, I must look on 

20 him as an Itinerant preacher more out of lucrative 
view than the salvation of the people. After a 
long silence he desired I would not look on him as 
an Itinerant preacher, which character he abhor 'd, 
but agreed mth me that in the Meeting houses al- 

25 ready Licensed he could not discharge the essential 
duties of his Ministry and therefore desired me to 
admit one M^ Todd for his assistant. I told him 
I had a due regard for people of tender consciences, 
^nd on M'^ Todd's ]iroducing' his ordination Certif- 

220 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

icate, &c., he vv^as admitted to be his assistant after 
taking the oaths and complying with the other 
requisites. He (Mr. Davis), told me he profess'd 
himself a Member of the Church of Scotland. I told 

5 him that church allowed of no pluralities, and there- 
fore if he would confine himself to one Meeting house 
or to the limits of a County, he should meet with 
all the protection and indulgence the act of Tolera- 
tion allows, while he continued peaceable and quiet. 

10 15. Historical Collections, etc. [Petition of some of 
the Clergy of Virginia to the House of 
Burgesses, 1751.] 
Pages 381-383. 
Sheweth : 

15 That there have been frequently held in the 
Counties of Hanover, Henrico, Goochland, & some 
others, for several years past, numerous Assemblies, 
especially of the common People, upon a pretended 
religious Account; convened sometimes by merely 

20 Lay Enthusiasts, who, in those meetings, read 
sundry fanatical Books & used long extempore pray- 
ers, and Discourses; sometimes by strolling pre- 
tended Ministers ; and at present by one M^ Samuel 
Davies, who has fixed himself in Hanover; and in the 

25 Counties of Amelia and Albemarle, by a person who 
calls himself M- Cennick well known in England, by 
his strict Intimacy with the Rev"^ M- Whitefield. 

That tho' these Teachers, and their Adherents 
(except the above mentioned Cennick), assume the 

221 



Source Problems in United States History 

Denomination of Presbyterians, yet, we think, they 
have no just claim to that character; as the Ring- 
leaders of the Party were, for their erroneous Doc- 
trines, and Practises, excluded the Presbyterian 

s Synod of Philadelphia, in May, 1741 (as appears by 
an Address of said Synod to our Governour), nor 
have they since that time, made any Recantation 
of their Errors, nor been readmitted as Members of 
that Synod which Synod, tho' of many years stand- 

10 ing, never was reprehended for Errors in Doctrine, 
Discipline or Government, either by the established 
Kirk of Scotland, the Presbyterian Dissenters in 
England, or any other body of Presbyterians what- 
soever; whence we beg leave to conclude, that the 

IS distinguishing Tenets of these Teachers before men- 
tioned, are of a dangerous consequence to Religion 
in general; and that the Authors and propagators 
thereof, are deservedly stigmatized with a name 
unknown, till of late in this part of the World. 

20 That your Petitioners further humbly conceive, 
that tho* these excluded Members of the Synod of 
Philadelphia were really Presbyterians, or of any 
of the other sects tolerated in England, yet there is 
no Law of this Colony by virtue whereof they can 

25 be entitled to a Licence to preach, far less to send 
forth their Emissaries, or to travel themselves over 
several Counties (to many places without invitation), 
to gain Proselytes to their way; 'to inveigle igno- 
rant and unwary People with their Sophistry,' and 

222 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

under pretence of greater Degrees of Piety among 
them, than can be found among the Members of 
the Estabhshed Church, to seduce them from their 
lawful Teachers, and the Religion hitherto professed 
s in this Dominion. 
1 6. Sketches of Virginia, etc. [Samuel Davies to 
Dr. Benjamin Avery, May 21, 1752.] 
Pages 208-209. 
... I am fully satisfied, sir, that as you intimate 

10 the Act of Uniformity and other penal laws against 
non-conformity are not in force in the colonies ; and 
consequently that the dissenters have no right nor 
indeed any need to plead the Act of Toleration as an 
exemption from those penal laws. But sir, our Legis- 

15 lature here has passed an act of the same kind with 
those laws, though the penalty is less, requiring all 
adult persons to attend on the established church. 
As this act was passed since the Revolution, it was 
necessary that Protestant dissenters should be ex- 

20 empted from its obligations and tolerated to worship 
God in separate assemblies; (though,, indeed, at the 
time of its enaction, viz., the 4th of Queen Ann, 
there was not a dissenting congregation, except a 
few Quakers, in the colony) and for this purpose, 

25 our Legislature thought fit to take in the act of 
Parliament made for that end in England, rather 
than pass a new one peculiar to this colony. This, 

■ sir, you may see in my remonstrance to the Governor 
and Council which I find has been laid before you. 

223 



Source Problems in United States History 

Now it is with a view to exempt ourselves from the 
obHgations of the above law made by our Legisla- 
ture, that we plead the Act of Toleration, and we plead 
it not as an English law, for we are convinced it does 
5 not extend hither by virtue of its primitive enaction, 
but as received into the body of the Virginia laws by 
our Legislature. And though for some time, some 
pretended to scruple, and others denied that the Act 
of Toleration is in force here even in this sense ; yet 
10 now I think it is generally granted, and all the ques- 
tion is about the intent and meaning of this Act; 
particularly whether a dissenting congregation, that 
is very much dispersed, and cannot meet at one 
place, may claim a right by virtue of said act, to 
IS have a plurality of places licensed for the con- 
venience for the sundry parts of the congregation? 
And whether it allows a dissenting minister to di- 
vide his labours among two congregations at sun- 
dry meeting-houses when by reason of the scarcity 
20 of ministers each congregation cannot be furnished 
with one? 

17. Sketches oj Virginia, etc. [Samuel Davies to 
the Bishop of London, January 10, 1752.] 
Pages 184-195. 
25 ... These things, my lord, being impartially con- 
sidered, I dare submit it to your lordship. 

Whether my itinerating in this manner in such 
circumstances be illegal? And whether, though I 
cannot live in five different counties at once, as your . 

224 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

lordship observes, I may not lawfully officiate in 
them, or in as many as the peculiar circumstances 
of my congregation, which though but one particular 
church, is dispersed through sundry counties, ren- 
5 der necessary? 

Whether contiguity of residence is necessary to 
entitle dissenters to the liberties granted by the Act 
of Toleration ? Whether when they cannot convene 
at one place, they may not, according to the true 

10 intent and meaning of that Act, obtain as many 
houses licensed as will render public worship acces- 
sible to them all? And whether if this liberty be 
denied them, they can be said to be tolerated at 
all? i.e. Whether dissenters are permitted to wor- 

15 ship in their own way, (which your lordship observes 
was the intent of the Act) who are prohibited from 
worshipping in their own way, unless they travel 
thirty, forty, or fifty miles every Sunday? . . . 

. . . Whether, when there are a few dissenting 

20 families in one county and a few in another, and 
they are not able to form a distinct congregation or 
particular church at each place, and yet all of them 
conjunctly are able to form one, though they cannot 
meet statedly at one place; whether, I say, they 

25 may not legally obtain sundry meeting-houses 
licensed, in these different counties, where their 
minister may divide his time according to the pro- 
portion of the people, and yet be looked upon as 
one organized church? And whether the minister 

225 



Source Problems in United States History 

of such a dispersed church, who alternately officiates 
at these sundry meeting-houses should on this ac- 
count be branded as an itinerant? 

Whether, when a number of dissenters, sufficient 

5 to constitute two distinct congregations, each of 
them able to maintain a minister, can obtain but 
one by reason of the scarcity of ministers, they may 
not legally share in the labours of that one, and 
have as many houses licensed for him to officiate 

10 in, as their distance renders necessary ? And whether 
the minister of such an united congregation, though 
he divides his labours at seven different places, or 
more, if their conveniency requires it, be not as 
properly a settled minister as though he preached 

15 but at one place, to but one congregation? Or 
(which is a parallel case) whether the Rev. Mr. 
Barrett, one of the ministers in Hanover, who has 
three churches situated in two counties, and whose 
parish is perhaps sixty miles in circumference, be 

20 not as properly a settled parish minister, as a Lon- 
don minister whose parishioners do not live half a 
mile from his church? 

I beg leave, my lord, farther to illustrate the case 
by a relation of a matter of fact, and a very possible 

25 supposition. 

It very often happens in Virginia, that the parishes 
are twenty, thirty, forty, and sometimes fifty or 
sixty miles long, and proportionately broad; which 
is chiefly owing to this, that people are not so thickly 

226 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

settled, as that the inhabitants in a small compass 
should be sufficient for a parish; and your lordship 
can easily conceive that the inhabitants of this in- 
fant colony are thinner than in England. The 
5 Legislature here has wisely made provision to remedy 
this inconveniency, by ordering sundry churches or 
chapels of ease to be erected in one parish, that one 
of them at least may be tolerably convenient to all 
the parishioners; and all of these are under the 

lo care of one minister, who shares his labours at each 
I^lace in proportion to the number of people there. 
In Hanover, a pretty populous county, there are two 
ministers, one of whom has two churches, and the 
other, as I observed, has three; the nearest of which 

-5 are twelve or fifteen miles apart ; and in some of the 
frontier counties the number of churches in a parish 
is much greater. And yet the number of churches 
does not multiply the parish into an equal number 
of parishes; nor does the minister by officiating at 

20 so many places, incur the odious epithet of an itin- 
erant preacher, a pluralist or nonresident. (Here 
again, my lord, I appeal to all the colony to attest 
this representation.) Now, I submit it to your 
lordship, whether there be not at least equal reason 

25 that a plurality of meeting-houses should be licensed 
for the use of the dissenters here, since they are 
more dispersed and fewer in number? . . . The act 
of William and Mary, my lord, does not particu- 
larize the number of houses to be licensed for the 
16 227 



Source ProblerrivS in United States History 

use of one congregation; but only requires in gen- 
eral, that all such places shall be registered before 
public worship be celebrated in them; from which 
it may be reasonably presumed, the number is to 

s be wholly regulated by the circumstances of the 
congregation. It is, however, evident that such a 
number was intended as that all the members of the 
congregation might conveniently attend. But to 
return. I submit it also to your lordship whether 

10 there be not as little reason for representing me as 
an itinerant preacher, on account of my preaching 
at so many places for the conveniency of one con- 
gregation, as that the minister of a large parish, 
where there are sundry churches or chapels of ease, 

15 should be so called for preaching at these sundry 
places, for the convenience of the parish ? . . . 

To all this, my lord, I may add, that though the 
Act of Toleration should not warrant my preaching 
in so many counties; yet, since, as your lordship 

20 observes, 'the dissenters obtained a clause in the 
loth Queen Anne, to empower any dissenting preach- 
er to preach occasionally in any other county but 
that where he was licensed;' and since the reason 
of the law is at least as strong here as in England, 

25 and consequently it efxtends hither, my conduct is 
sufficiently justified by it. . . . 

For my farther vindication, my lord, I beg leave 
to declare, and I defy the world to confute me, 
that in all sermons I have preached in Virginia, 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

I have not wasted one minute in exclaiming or 
reasoning against the peculiarities of the estab- 
lished church; nor so much as assigned the rea- 
sons of my non-conformity. I have not exhausted 
s my zeal in railing against the established clergy, 
in exposing their imperfections, some of which 
lie naked to my view, or in depreciating their char- 
acters. No, my lord, I have matters of infinitely 
greater importance to exert my zeal and spend my 

10 time and strength upon; — To preach repentance 
towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus 
Christ — To alarm secure impenitent s ; to reform the 
profligate; to undeceive the hypocrite; to raise up 
the hands that hang down, and to strengthen the 

IS feeble knees; — These are the doctrines I preach, 
these are the ends I pursue; and those my artifices 
to gain proselytes: and if ever I divert from these 
to ceremonial trifles, let my tongue cleave to the 
roof of my mouth. Now, my lord, if people adhere 

20 to me on such accounts as these, I cannot discourage 
them without wickedly betraying the interests of 
religion, and renouncing my character as a minister 
of the gospel. If the members of the Church of 
England come from distant places to the meeting- 

25 houses licensed for the use of professed dissenters, 
and upon hearing, join with them, and declare them- 
selves Presbyterians, and place themselves under my 
ministerial care, I dare say, your lordship will not 
censure me for admitting them. And if these new 

229 



Source Problems in United States History 

proselytes live at such distance that they cannot 
meet statedly at the places already licensed, have 
they not a legal right to have houses licensed con- 
venient to them, since they are as properly professed 

5 dissenters, in favour of whom the Act of Toleration 
was enacted, as those that have been educated in non- 
conformity? There is no method, my lord, to pre- 
vent the increase of our number in this manner, but 
either the prohibiting of all conformists to attend 

10 occasionally on my ministery; which neither the 
laws of God nor the land will warrant : or the Epis- 
copal ministers preaching the same doctrines which 
I do; as I humbly conceive they oblige themselves 
by subscribing their own articles; and had this 

15 been done, I am verily persuaded there would not 
have been one dissenter in these parts : or my abso- 
lutely refusing to receive those into the community 
of the dissenters, against whom it may be objected 
that they once belonged to the Church of England; 

20 which your lordship sees is unreasonable. 'Tis the 
conversion and salvation of men I aim to promote; 
and genuine Christianity, under whatever various 
forms it appears, never fails to charm my heart. ^ 
18. Historical Collections, etc. [Thomas Dawson to 

as the Bishop of London, July 23, 1753.] 

Page 407. 
... I should not have troubled your Lordship at 

* This letter was not submitted to the Bishop of London. See 
Sketches of Virginia, etc., p. 206. 

230 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

this time with any thing relating to M^ Davies (as 
my brother has writ fully upon that subject), had 
he not last June, notwithstanding the 7 meeting 
houses situated in 5 different Counties already 

5 licensed for himself & his assistant M^ Todd, applied 
to have a meeting house in S^ Peter's Parish, the 
place formerly licensed by the justices of New Kent, 
but their order Superceded by the general court. 
However the Gov^ and council positavely refused 

10 him. M^ Davies produced Sir D. Ryder's opinion 
(a copy of which I here transmit to your Lordship), 
in which I humbly conceive, one extract from the 
toleiation act is considered without any regard to 
the other parts of it: For if a Dissenting minister 

15 had such a liberty allowed them by that Act, how 
came they to apply for & obtain a clause in the 10^^ 
of Qu.Ann^, to permit any dissenting teacher to 
preach occasionally in any other County but that 
where he was licensed. 

20 19. Journals of the House of Burgesses of Vir- 
ginia, edited by J. P. Kennedy. [Petition 
of Baptists of the County of Lunenburg, 
February 12, 1772.] 
Page 160. 

25 A Petition of several persons of the county of Lunen- 
burg, whose Names are thereunto subscribed, was 
presented to the House and read ; setting forth that 
the Petitioners, being of the Society of Christians 
called Baptists, find themselves restricted in the 

231 



Source Problems in United States History 

Exercise of their Religion, their Teachers imprisoned 
under various Pretences, and the Benefits of the 
Toleration Act denied them, although they are will- 
ing to conform to the true Spirit of that Act, and 
5 are loyal and quiet Subjects; and therefore praying 
that they may be treated with the same kind Indul- 
gence, in religious Matters, as Quakers, Presbyterians, 
and other Protestant Dissenters, enjoy. 

20. Journals of the House of Burgesses, etc. [Petition 
10 of Baptists of AmeHa County, February 

24, 1772.] 
Pages 185-186. 

... If the Act of Toleration does not extend to 
this colony, they are exposed to severe Persecution ; 
IS and, if it does extend hither, and the Power of grant- 
ing Licenses to Teachers be lodged, as is supposed, in 
the General Court alone, the Petitioners must suffer 
considerable Inconveniences, not only because that 
Court sits not oftener than twice in the Year, and 
20 then at a Place far remote, but because the said 
Court will admit a single Meeting-House, and no 
more, in one County.^ . . . 

21. The Writings of James Madison, etc., edited by 

Gaillard Hunt, Vol. I. [James Madison to Will- 
as iam Bradford, January 24, 1774, April i, 1774.] 

^ "I knew the General Court to refuse a license for a Baptist meet- 
ing-house in the county of Richmond, because there was a Presby- 
terian meeting-house already in the county, although the Act of 
Toleration consieiered them distinct societies." — William Fristoe, 
30 History of Ketockton Baptist Association, p. 69. 

232 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

Pages 19-23. 

. . . Union of religious sentiments begets a surpris- 
ing confidence, and ecclesiastical establishments tend 
to great ignorance and corruption ; all of which facili- 
5 tates the execution of mischievous projects. . . . 
I want again to breathe your free air. I expect it 
will mend my constitution and confirm my principles. 
I have indeed as good an atmosphere at home as 
the climate will allow; but have nothing to brag 
10 of as to the state and liberty of my country. Poverty 
and luxury prevail among all sorts ; pride, ignorance, 
and knavery among the priesthood, and vice and 
wickedness among the laity. This is bad enough, 
but it is not the worst I have to tell you. That 
15 diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution 
rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the 
clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such 
business. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent 
country not less than five or six well-meaning men in 
20 close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, 
which in the main are very orthodox. I have 
neither patience to hear, talk, or think of anything 
relative to this matter; for I have squabbled and 
scolded, abused and ridiculed, so long about it 
25 to little purpose, that I am without common pa- 
tience. So I must beg you to pity me, and pray 
for liberty of conscience to all. 
[April I, 1774.] 

. . . Our Assembly is to meet the first of May, when 
233 



Source Problems in United States History 

it is expected something will be done in behalf of 
the dissenters. Petitions, I hear, are already form- 
ing among the persecuted Baptists, and I fancy it 
is in the thought of the Presbyterians also, to inter- 

s cede for greater liberty in matters of religion. For 
my own part, I cannot help being very doubtful of 
their succeeding in the attempt. The affair was on 
the carpet during the last session ; but such incredible 
and extravagant stories were told in the House of 

lo the monstrous effects of the enthusiasm prevalent 
among the sectaries, and so greedily swallowed by 
their enemies, that I believe they lost footing by 
it. And the bad name they still have with those 
who pretend too much contempt to examine into 

IS their principles and conduct, and are too much de- 
voted to ecclesiastical establishment to hear of the 
toleration of the dissentients, I am apprehensive, 
will be again made a pretext for rejecting their re- 
quest. 

■^o The sentiments of our people of fortune and 
fashion on this subject are vastly different from 
what you have been used to. That liberal, catholic, 
and equitable way of thinking, as to the rights of con- 
science, which is one of the characteristics of a free 

25 people, and so strongly marks the people of your prov- 
ince, is but little known among the zealous adherents 
to our hierarchy. We have, it is true, some persons 
in the Legislature of generous principles, both in 
Religion and Politics; but number, not merit, you 

234 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

know, is necessary to carry points there. Besides, 
the clergy are a numerous and powerful body, have 
great influence at home by reason of their connection 
with and dependence on the Bishops and Crown, and 
will naturally employ all their arts and interest to 
depress their rising adversaries; for such they must 
consider dissenters who rob them of the good will 
of the people, and may, in time, endanger their liv- 
ings and security. 



PART B 

RELIGIOUS LIBERTY IN VIRGINIA, 1776-17S6 

I. The Life of George Mason, by Kate Mason Row- 
land, Vol. I, Appendix X. [Declaration of 
Rights, Article 14.] 
Page 435. 
s (a) As drafted by Mason and presented to the 
committee : 

That religion, or the duty which we owe to 
our Creator, and the manner of discharging 
it, can be directed only by reason and convic- 
10 tion, not by force or violence; and, therefore, 
that all men should enjoy the fullest toleration 
in the exercise of religion, according to the 
dictates of conscience, unpunished and unre- 
strained by the magistrate, unless, under color 
IS of religion, any man disturb the peace, the happi- 
ness, or the safety of society. And that it is 
the mutual duty of all to practise Christian 
forbearance, love, and charity towards each 
other. ^ 

20 I This article is in the handwriting of Mason (see facsimile, p. 241 .) 

236 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

2. The Proceedings of the Convention oj Delegates, 

etc., June 12, 1776. [Declaration of Rights, 
Article 16.] 
Page 43. 
5 {h) As amended by the convention. 

That religion, or the duty which we owe to our 
Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be 
directed only by reason and conviction, not by force 
or violence; and therefore, all men are equally 
10 entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to 
the dictates of conscience ; and that it is the mutual 
duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, 
and charity, towards each other. ^ 

3. Proceedings of the Convention, etc. [Petition of 
IS Baptists of Prince William County, June 20, 

1776.] 
Page 58. 

A petition of sundry persons of the Baptist 
Church, in the county of Prince William, whose 
20 names are thereunto subscribed, was presented to the 
Convention and read; setting forth, that at a time 
when this colony, with the others, is contending for 
the civil rights of mankind, against the enslaving 
schemes of a powerful enemy, they are persuaded 
25 the strictest unanimity is necessary among ourselves ; 
and, that every remaining cause of division may, if 
possible, be removed, they think it their duty to pe- 

1 Madison was principally responsible for this change in the 
article. — Hunt, Ibid., p. 41. 

237 



Source Problems in United States History 

tition for the following religious pri\41eges, which they 
have not yet been indulged with in this part of the 
world, to wit : That they be allowed to worship God 
in their own way, without interruption ; that they be 
5 permitted to maintain their own ministers, and none 
others; that they be married, buried, and the Hke, 
without paying the clerg>' of other denominations; 
that, these things granted, they will gladly unite 
with their brethren, and to the utmost of their 

10 abiHty promote the common cause. 

4. Sketches of Virginia, etc. [Memorial of the 
Presbytery of Hanover, October 24, 1776.] 
Pages 323-324. 
To the Honorable the General Assembly of Virginia: 

15 The Memorial of the Presbytery of Hanover hum- 
bly represents: 

It is well known, that in the frontier counties, 
which are justly supposed to contain a fifth part of 
the inhabitants of Virginia, the dissenters have 

20 borne the heavy burdens of purchasing glebes, build- 
ing churches, and supporting the established clergy, 
where there are very few Episcopalians, either to 
assist in bearing the expense, or to reap the advan- 
tage; and that throughout the other parts of the 

25 country, there are also many thousands of zealous 
friends and defenders of our State, who, besides the 
invidious, and disadvantageous restrictions to which 
they have been subjected, annually pay large taxes 

238 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

to support an establishment, from which their con- 
seienees and principles oblige them to dissent: all 
whieh are confessedly so many violations of their 
natural rights; and in their consequences, a restraint 
5 upon freedom, of inquiry, and private judgment. 
In this enlightened age, and in a land where all, 
of every denomination are united in the most 
strenuous efforts to be free, we hope and expect 
that our representatives will cheerfully concur in 
10 removing every species of religious, as well as civil 
bondage. Certain it is, that every argument for 
civil liberty, gains additional strength when applied 
to Hberty in the concerns of religion; and there is 
no argument in favour of establishing the Christian 
IS religion, but what may be pleaded, with equal pro- 
priety, for estabHshing the tenets of Mahomed by 
those who believe the Alcoran : or if this be not true, 
it is at least impossible for the magistrate to adjudge 
the right of preference among the various sects that 
20 profess the Christian faith, without erecting a chair 
of infallibility, which would lead us back to the 
church of Rome. 

5. Journal oj ike House oj Delegates oj Virginia 
1776. [Memorial of the Clergy of the 
25 Established Church of Virginia, November 

8, 1776.] 
Page 47. 

A memorial of a considerable number of the clergy 
of the established church of Virginia was pre- 

239 



Source Problems in United States History 

sented to the House, and read; setting forth, that 
having understood various petitions have been pre- 
sented to the Assembly, praying the aboHtion of the 
estabHshed church in this State, wish to represent, 

s that when they undertook the charge of parishes 
in Virginia, they depended on the publick faith for 
the receiving that recompense for their services, 
during Hfe, or good behaviour, which the laws of the 
land promised, a tenure which to them appears of 

10 the same sacred nature as that by which every man 
in the State holds, and has secured to him, his private 
property, and that such of them as are not yet pro- 
vided for, entered into holy orders expecting to re- 
ceive the several emoluments which such religious 

IS estabHshment offered ; that from the nature of their 
education they are precluded from gaining a toler- 
able subsistence in any other way of life, and that 
therefore they think it would be inconsistent with 
justice either to deprive the present incumbents 

20 of parishes of any right or profits they hold or en- 
joy, or to cut off from such as are now in orders and 
unbeneficed, those expectations which originated 
from the laws of the land, and which have been the 
means of disqualifying them for any other profession 

25 or way of life; also, that though they are far from 
favouring encroachments on the religious rights of 
any sect or denomination of men, yet they conceive 
that a religious establishment in a State is conducive 
to its peace and happiness, they think the opinions 

240 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

of mankind have a very considerable influence over 
their practice, and that it therefore cannot be 
improper for the legislative body of a State to con- 
sider how such opinions as are most consonant to 
s reason, and of the best efficacy in human affairs, 
may be propagated and supported ; that they are of 
opinion the doctrines of Christianity have a greater 
tendency to produce virtue amongst men than any 
human laws or institutions, and that these can be 

10 best taught and preserved in their purity in an estab- 
lished church, which gives encouragement to men 
to study and acquire a competent knowledge of the 
scriptures; and they think that, if these great pur- 
poses can be answered by a religious establishment, 

IS the hardships which such a regulation might impose 
on individuals, or even bodies of men, ought not to 
be considered; also, that whilst they are fully per- 
suaded of the good effects of religious establishments 
in general, they are more particularly convinced of 

20 the excellency of the religious establishment which 
has hitherto subsisted in this State; that they 
ground their conviction on the experience of 150 
years, during which period order and internal tran- 
quillity, true piety and virtue, have more prevailed 

25 than in most other parts of the world, and on the 
mild and tolerating spirit of the church established, 
which with all Christian charity and benevolence has 
regarded dissenters of every denomination, and has 
shown no disposition to restrain them in the exercise 

241 



Source Problems in United States History 

of their religion; that it appears to them that the 
mildness of the church establishment has heretofore 
been acknowledged by those very dissenters who 
now aim at its ruin, many of whom emigrated from 

5 other countries to settle in this, from motives, as 
they reasonably suppose, of interest and happiness; 
that they apprehend many bad consequences from 
abolishing the church establishment ; that they can- 
not suppose, should all denominations of Christians 

10 be placed upon a level, that this equality will con- 
tinue, or that no attempt will be made by any sect 
for the superiority, and that they foresee much con- 
fusion, probably civil commotions, will attend the 
contest; that they also dread the ascendancy of 

IS that religion which permits its professors to threaten 
destruction to the Commonwealth, in order to serve 
their own private ends; that though the justice and 
expediency of continuing the church establishment 
is a matter of which they themselves have no doubt, 

20 yet they wish that the final determination of this 
House be deferred till the general sentiments of the 
good people of this Commonwealth can be collected, 
as they have the best reasons to believe that a ma- 
jority of them desire to see the church estabHshment 

25 continued; and that, as the sentiments of the people 
have been attended to in other instances, they submit 
to the consideration of the House, whether some regard 
should not be paid to their sentiments in a matter 
which so nearly concerns them as that of religion. 

242 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

6. Writings of Thomas Jefferson, edited by P. L. 
Ford. Vol. I. [Comment of Jefferson on the 
Progress of Religious Liberty in Virginia, 
1776-1779.] 
5 Pages 53-54. 

. . . This unrighteous compulsion to maintain teach- 
ers of what they [the dissenters] deemed religious er- 
rors was grievously felt during the regal government, 
and without a hope of relief. But the first republi- 

10 can legislature, which mxCt in 76. was crowded with 
petitions to abolish this sp)iritual tyranny. These 
brought on the severest contest in which I have ever 
been engaged. Our great opponents were Mr. 
Pendleton & Robert Carter Nicholas, honest men, 

15 but zealous churchmen. The petitions were re- 
ferred to the commee of the whole house on the 
state of the country;^ and, after desperate contests 
in that committee, almost daily from the nth of 
Octob. to the 5 th of December, we prevailed so 

20 far only as to repeal the laws which rendered crimi- 
nal the maintenance of any religious opinions, the 
forbearance of repairing to the church, or the exer- 
cise of any mode of worship : and further, to exempt 
dissenters from contributions to the support of the 

25 established church; and to suspend, only until the 
next session levies on the members of that church 
for the salaries of their own incumbents. For al- 

An error. The petitions were referred to the ''Committee on 
p.eligion." 

243 



Source Problems in United States History 

though the majority of our citizens were dissenters, 
as has been observed, a majority of the legislature 
were churchmen. Among these however were some 
reasonable and liberal men, who enabled us, on some 

5 points, to obtain feeble majorities. But our oppo- 
nents carried, in the general resolutions of the com- 
mee Nov. 19. a declaration that religious assemblies 
ought to be regulated, and that provision ought to 
be made for continuing the succession of the clerg>\ 

10 and superintending their conduct. And in the bill ^ 
now passed was inserted an express reservation of 
the question Whether a general assessment should 
not be established by law, on every one, to the sup- 
port of the pastor of his choice; or whether all 

IS should be left to voluntary contributions; and on 
this question, debated at every session from 76 to 
79 (some of our dissenting allies, having now se- 
cured their particular object, going over to the 
advocates of a general assessment,) we could only 

20 obtain a suspension from session to session until 
79. when the question against a general assessment 
was finally carried, and the establishment of the 
Anglican church entirely put down. 
7. Journal of the House of Delegates, 1777. [Peti- 

25 tions of Inhabitants of Caroline County, De- 

cember 5, 1777.] 
Page 57. 
Several petitions of sundry inhabitants of the 

I Act of December 5, 1776. 
24-^ 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

county of Caroline, whose names are thereunto sub- 
scribed, was presented to the House, and read; 
setting forth, that they have seen an act of the last 
session of the Assembly, by which dissenters from 
the church of England are exempted from all levies 
for the support of the said church and its ministers, 
and highly approve thereof, as founded on x^rinciples 
of justice and propriety, and favorable to religious 
liberty; that, at the same time, they heg leave to 
suggest, that, as, in their ojjinion, p>ublic worship is 
a duty we owe to the Creator and preserver of man- 
kind, and productive of effects the most beneficial 
to society, it ought to be enjoined and regulated by 
the legislature, so as to x>reserve public peace, order, 
and decency, without prescribing a mode or form 
of worhip to any; that in such regulations an ex- 
pense must unavoidably he incurred, not only for 
the building and repairing of places of worship, but 
also for the support of religious teachers or ministers, 
that they may be freed from the cares of providing 
for their own and their families' subsistence, and 
attend more constantly and diligently to the cure of 
souls, which expense they conceive ought to be de- 
frayed by an equal contribution of all men, in pro- 
portion to their circumstances, or according to the 
degree in which they possess that species of prop- 
erty on which the legislature shall think fit to levy 
their taxes for public uses; but that equality can 
never be preserved if men are left to their volun- 

245 



Source Problems in United States History 

tary donations; since, while the ]iberal exceed their 
proportion, the avaricious and miserly will fall short 
of theirs, or, perhaps, withhold all contribution ; and 
that at the same time, the mode of making and 

5 collecting such subscriptions, will probably be the 
source of much contention and ill will between the 
minister and his congregation, which circumstance, 
with the very precarious nature of the provision, 
must necessarily discourage men of genius and 

10 learning from engaging in the ministerial office, and 
bring that order into contempt, and perhaps, in the 
end, religion itself: 

That upon these, and many other considerations, 
they are of opinion, that it will be most proper to 

IS fix on all tithables the payment of one certain annual 
sum, which may be judged adequate to the decent 
support of a minister of the gospel, and providing 
places of worship, leaving it to the payer, at the 
time of giving in his list of tithables, to direct the 

20 appropriation of his quota to the use of that church, 
and its ministers, under such regulations as may be 
thought best. 

8. Separation of Church and State in Virginia, by 
H. J. Eckenrode. [Petition of Sundry In- 

25 habitants of the County of Essex, October 22, 

I779-] 
Pages 57-5S. 

. . . The great confusion and disorder that hath 
arisen, and likely to continue in this Country on 

246 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

A.ccount of Religion, since the Old Establishment 
has been interrupted, convinces us of the great and 
absolute necessity there is for the Legislative Body 
of this vState, to take it under their most serious 
5 consideration. ... A general assessment for the sup- 
port of Religious Worship, wou'd be most agree- 
able to your Petitioners, that all Licentious and 
Itinerant Preachers be forbid collecting or Assem- 
bling of Negroes and others at unseasonable times. 

10 That every Minister of every Christian Denomina- 
tion have his stated p)la-ce of Worship. That no 
Insults, or interruptions be suffered to any Chris- 
tian Congregation Assembled at proper times for 
Worship. That no doctrine be permitted to be 

15 preached, which may tend to subvert Government 
or disturb Civil Society. That there be a general 
Election of Vestry Men in every Parish, and that 
they may have power to a.^sess or levy upon the 
Tythables of their respective Parishes, what they 

20 may think reasonable for the support of the Ministers 
of every Denomination and to be paid to any pro- 
fession that the occuj^iers of such Tythes may think 
proper. 
(J. Separation of Church and State in Virginia, etc. 

25 [Petition from Amelia County, November 8, 

1784.] 
Page 84 

.'. . [Declaring] that your Petitioners have with much 
concern observed a general Declension of Religion 

247 



Source Problems in United States History 

for a number of Years past, occasioned in Part, 
we conceive by the late War, but chiefly b}^ its not 
being duly aided and patronized by the civil Power; 
that should it decline with nearly the same rapidity 

s in Future, your Petitioners apprehend Consequences 
dangerous, if not fatal to the Strength and Stability 
of Civil Government. . . . Were all Sense of Re- 
ligion rooted out of the Minds of Men, scarce any 
thing would be left on which human Laws would 

10 take hold. . . . Your Petitioners therefore think that 
those who legislate, not only have a Right, founded 
upon the principle of public utility, but as they wish 
to promote the Virtue and Happiness of their Con- 
stituents & the good People of the State in general ; as 

IS they wish well to the Strength and StabiHty of Gov- 
ernment, they ought to aid & patronize Religion. . . . 
As every Man in the State partakes of the Bless- 
ings of Peace and Order . . . [so] every Man should 
contribute as well to the support of Religion, as that 

20 of Civil Government ; nor has he any Reason to com- 
plain of this, as an Encroachment upon his religious 
Liberty, if he is permitted to worship God according 
to the Dictates of his Conscience, 
lo. Separation of Church and State in Virginia, etc. 

25 [Petition of Inhabitants of Rockingham County, 

November i8, 1784.] 
Pages 95-96. 

To the Honourable the Speaker and house of 
Delegates now Sitting The Petition of Sundry of 

248 



Religious roieration and jbreedoni in Virginia 

the Inhabitants of Rockingham County — -Sheweth 
— That while we pay the greatest Deference to so 
venerable a Body we may be permitted Submissively 
to say it is our Humble Opinions that any Majestrait 
s or Legislative Body that tc^kes upon themselves the 
power of Governing ReHgion by human Laws As- 
sumes a power that never was committed to them 
by God nor can be by Man for the Confirmation of 
which Opinion we shall Cite no less authority than 

10 the Great Mr. Lock who says 'that the whole juris- 
diction of the Majestrait reaches only to civil Con- 
cernments and that all civil power Right and Do- 
minion is bounded and confined to the only care 
of promoting these things' which is so Pertinent 

15 that we need not Expatiate on it Onely say that if 
you can do any thing in Religion by human Laws 
you can do every thing if you can this year take 
five Dollars from me and give it to a Minister of 
any Denomination you may next year by the same 

20 Rule take Fifty or what not and give it to one of 
another or to them of all other Denominations — 
We think that where ever Religious Establishments 
hath taken place it hath been attended with Per- 
nicious Consequences for Instance we shall go no 

25 further than New England for no sooner was their 
Religion Established their Ministers ample pro- 
vided for than Fining Imprisoning Whipping Ban- 
ishing, &c: Ensued part of which oppressions Con- 
tinued untill as late as the year 1773 when Several 

249 



Source Problems in United States History 



Men were Imprisoned for Ministerial Tax about 
which time Sundry of their Ministers who had an 
opportunity to see the Consequence of such laws and 
practices appeared against them said (sic) to Connec- 

s ticut Legislators. The Affairs of the State are the 
proper province of civil Rulers as to the Church of 
Christ be content to let it stand on its own proper 
Gospel foundation Regulated by its own Laws and 
Guarded by its own Sanctions — and tho' she may 

10 appear weak and Feeble and Ready to fall yet the 
Interposition of worldly power to Establish her and 
civil Policy to Defend her will only jostle her founda- 
tions and sink her the Lower : To which we would 
add that it is certain Christianity was first planted 

IS and was propogated through the World for three 
hundred years by truth and love without and often 
against the use of Secular force can then the power 
thereof be more plainly denied in any way than 
by saying (as some does) that it would soon fail 

20 if not supported by Tax and Compulsion. For a 
further proof (if necessary) of its not failing without 
such human Support — Consider the State of Rhood 
Island which proved an Asylum for the Distressed 
and Banished — The State of Pensilvania both of 

25 them hath been left intirely free in Religion even 
since their first planting one One hundred and forty 
the other one hundred years and the numerous In- 
habitants in the Town of Boston hath enjoyed a 
like freedom these Ninety years last past. Now we 

250 



1 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

would ask is Religion Lost in any of those places 
or whether there is not as much of it there as where 
thought to be well Guarded by human Laws we 
believe there is and that there are proofs enough to 
5 Shew that this Liberty hath greatly Contributed to 
their Wellfare both Civil and Religious and sure 
we are that there hath not appeared any thing 
amongst them more Contrary to the Spirit of true 
Christianity than what is before Related. We beg 

10 Leave to Remark the Inequality of such Tax for 
considering peoples diferent Situations it can be but 
forcing one Mans Money from him and giving it for 
the Advantage or supposed Advantage of another 
and in which it is Impossible for himself to Share 

IS which is a Grievance we too long laboured under — 
Again we think it would Infringe upon what ought 
to be held most Sacred that is our Bill of Rights. 

Now if as above the power of Civil Government 
relates onely to Mens Civil Interests If whereever it 

20 hath been attended with pernicious Consequences 
If Christianity was first planted and propagated 
through the World for three Hundred years with- 
out and often against the Use of Secular force and 
that is plainly denying the power thereof to say it 

25 would soon fail if not supported by Tax and Compul- 
sion If leaving States Intirely free in Religion hath 
Contributed to their Wellfare both Civil and Re- 
ligious If a General sess to support Ministers would 
)De Inequal therefore a Grievance And if it would 

251 



Source Problems in United States History 

Infringe on our Bill of Rights We humbly Beg that 
your Honourable house would take it into your 
Serious Consideration and leave us (as we have 
the Greatest Expectation you ^^411 that is) Intiroly 

5 free in Religion or rather by a Law Establish us in 
the freedom we have Enjoy' d for some years past 
which Right the South CaroHna Legislators (to 
their lasting Honor) hath confirm 'd their Con- 
stituents in several years ago — As the original De- 

10 sign of Vestry s is now Ceas'd we desire that our 
Vestry may be Disolved and Overseers of the poor 
chosen in their Stead. 

II. Sketches of Virginia, etc. [IMemorial of the 
Convention of the Presbyterian Church, 

15 August 13, 1785-] 

Pages 342-343. 
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Common- 
wealth of Virginia: 
The Ministers and Lay Representatives of the 

20 Presbyterian Church in Virginia, assembled in Con- 
vention, beg leave to address you. . . . The in- 
grossed bill for establishing a provision for the 
teachers of the Christian religion and the act 
for incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church, 

25 so far as it secures to that church, the churches, 
glebes, &c., procured at the expense of the whole 
community, are not only evidences of this,'^ but of 

^ That is, of a disposition on the part of the state "to consider it- 
self as possessed of supremacy in spirituals, as well as temporals,'' 

2S2 



\ 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

an impolitic partiality which wc are sorry to have 
observed so long. 

We therefore in the name of the Presbyterian 
Church in Virginia, beg leave to exercise our privi- 
s lege as freemen in remonstrating against the former 
absolutely, and against the latter under the re- 
strictions above expressed. 

We oppose the Bill, 

Because it is a departure from the proper line of 
10 legislation; 

Because it is unnecessary, and inadequate to its 
professed end — impolitic, in many respects — and a 
direct violation of the Declaration of Rights. 

The end of civil government is security to the 
IS temporal liberty and property of mankind, and to 
protect them in the free exercise of religion. Legis- 
lators are invested with powers from their constit- 
uents, for this purf>ose only; and their duty extends 
no farther. Religion is altogether personal, and the 
20 right of exercising it unalienable; and it is not, 
cannot, and ought not to be, resigned to the will of 
the society at large; and much less to the Legisla- 
ture, which derives its authority wholly from the 
consent of the people, and is limited by the original 
25 intention of civil associations. 

We never resigned to the control of government, 
our right of determining for ourselves, in this im- 
portant article; and acting agreeably to the convic- 
tions of reason and conscience, in discharging our 

253 



Source Problems in United States History 

duty to our Creator. And therefore, it would be an 
unwarrantable stretch of prerogative, in the Legisla- 
ture, to make laws concerning it, except for protection. 
And it would be a fatal symptom of abject slavery 
5 in us, were we to submit to the usurpation. . . . 

We farther remonstrate against the bill as an im- 
politic measure: 

It disgusts so large a proportion of the citizens, 

that it would weaken the influence of government 

10 in other respects, and diffuse a spirit of opposition 

to the rightful exercise of constitutional authority, 

if enacted into a law: 

It partially supposes the Quakers and Menomists 
to be more faithful in conducting the religious in- 
15 t crests of their societies, than the other sects — which 
we apprehend to be contrary to fact: 

It unjustly subjects men who may be good citi- 
zens, but who have not embraced our common 
faith, to the hardship of supporting a system, they 
20 have not as yet believed the truth of; and deprives 
them of their property, for what they do not suppose 
to be of importance to them. 

It establishes a precedent for further encroach- 
ments, by making the Legislature judges of religious 
25 truth. If the Assembly have a right to determine 
the preference between Christianity, and the other 
systems of religion that prevail in the world, they 
may also, at a convenient time, give a preference 
to some favoured sect among Christians: 

254 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

It discourages the population of our country by 
alarming those who may have been oppressed by 
religious establishments in other countries, with 
fears of the same in this: and by exciting our own 

5 citizens to immigrate to other lands of greater 
freedom : 

It revives the principle which our ancestors con- 
tested to blood, of attempting to reduce all reHgions 
to one standard by the force of civil authority: 

10 And it naturally opens a door for contention 
among citizens of different creeds, and different 
opinions respecting the extent of the powers of 
government. 
12. A History of the Rise and Progress of the Baptists 

IS in Virginia^ by R. B. Semple. [Resolutions 

of Baptist General Committee, August 13, 

1785.] 
Page 71. 

Resolved, That it be recommended to those coun- 
20 ties, which have not yet prepared petitions to 
be presented to the general assembly, against the 
engrossed bill for a general assessment for the sup- 
port of the teachers of the Christian religion, to 
proceed thereon as soon as possible: that it is he- 
2£ lieved to be repugnant to the spirit of the gospel, 
for the legislature thus to proceed in matters of re- 
ligion : that no human laws ought to be established 
for this purpose -^ but that every person ought to be 
left entirely free in respect to matters of religion: 

255 



Source Problems in United States History 

that the holy author of our religion, needs no 
such compulsive measures for the promotion of 
his eause : that the gospel wants not the feeble arm 
of man for its support: that it has made, and \^'ill 
5 again through di\4ne power, make, its way against 
all opposition: and that, should the legislature as- 
sume the right of taxing the people for the support 
of the gospel, it ^^'ill be destructive to religious 
liberty. 
10 13. The Writings of JdDics Madiso)!, edited by Gail- 
lard Hunt, Vol. II. [Alemorial and Remon- 
strance against Religious Assessments. 1 785.] 
Pages 1S3-191. 
I'o tJic Honorable the General Assembly of tJie Com- 
15 monwcalih of Virgi}iia. A Me))iorial and Re- 

nio}istra)iee. 
We, the subscribers, citizens of the said Common- 
wealth, ha\'ing taken into serious consideration, a 
Bill printed by order of the last Session of General 
20 Assembly, entitled *A Bill establishing a proxdsion 
for Teachers of the Christian ReHgion,' and con- 
ceiving that the same, if finally armed ^^'ith the 
sanctions of a law, vdW be a dangerous abuse of 
power, are bound as faithful members of a free 
25 State, to remonstrate against it, and to declare 
the reasons by which we are determined. "We re- 
monstrate against the said Bill, 

I. Because we hold it for a fundamental and un- 
alienable truth, 'that rehgion, or the dtity which 

250 



Religious Tolcratir^n and Freedom in Virginia 

wc owe to our Creator and the Manner of dischar;^- 
ing it, can Vx; directed only ?jy reason and conviclion, 
not hy force or violence.' ' The Religion then of 
every man must be left to the conviction and con- 
s science of every man; and it is the right of every 
man to exercise it as these may dictate. I^his 
right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is un- 
alienable; because the opinions of men, dej-xrnding 
only on the evidence contemj^lated h)y their own 

^'^ minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men: It 
is unalienable also; ?>ecause v/hat is here a right 
towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It 
is the duty of every man to render to the Creator 
such homage, and such only, as he ?Xilieves to be 

15 accc*p table to him. This duty is x>recedent, both in 
order of time and in degree of o?jligation, to the 
claims of Civil Society. Before any man can \je con- 
sidered as a member of Civil Society, he must Us con- 
sidered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe : 

20 And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into 
any subordinate Association, must always do it with 
a reservation of his duty to the general authority; 
much more must every man who becomes a member 
of any particnilar Civil Society, do it with a saving 

25 of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We 
maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no 
man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil 
Society, and that religion is wholly exemj^t from its 

' Decl. Rights, Art. i6: [Note in the original]. 

257 



Source Problems in United States History 

cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, 
by which any question which may divide a Society, 
can be ultimately determined but by the will of the 
majority; but it is also true, that the majority 

5 may trespass on the rights of the minority. . . . 

4. Because the bill violates that equality which 
ought to be the basis of every law, and which is 
more indispensible, in proportion as the validity 
or expediency of any law is more liable to be im- 

:o peached. If 'all men are by nature equally free 
and independent,' ^ all men are to be considered as 
entering into Society on equal conditions; as re- 
linquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, 
one than another of their natural rights. Above all 

IS are they to be considered as retaining an 'equal title 
to the free exercise of religion according to the dic- 
tates of conscience.'^ Whilst we assert ourselves a 
freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the 
Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we 

20 cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds 
have not yielded to the evidence which has con- 
vinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence 
against God, not against man: To God, therefore, 
not to men, must an account of it be rendered. . . . 

25 5. Because the bill implies either that the Civil 
Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious truth ; 
or that he may employ Religion as an engine of 

1 Decl. Rights, Art. i: [Note in the original]. 

2 Art. 16: [Note in the original]. 

258 



Religious Toleration and Freedom in Virginia 

Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretention 
falisfied by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in 
all ages, and throughout the world: The second 
an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation. 
s 6. Because the Establishment proposed by the bill 
is not requisite for the support of the Christian 
Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the 
Christian Religion itself; for every page of it dis- 
avows a dependence on the powers of this world : it is 
10 a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this 
Religion both existed and flourished, not only with- 
out the support of human laws, but in spite of every 
opposition from them; and not only during the 
period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been 
15 left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of 
Providence: Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for 
a Religion not invented by human policy, must have 
pre-existed and been supported before it was estab- 
lished by human policy. It is moreover to weaken 
2o in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence 
in its innate excellence, and the patronage of its 
Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, 
a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its 
fallacies, to trust it to its own merits. 
25 7. Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiasti- 
cal establishments, instead of maintaining the purity 
and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary opera- 
tion. During almost fifteen centuries, has the legal 
establishment of Christianity been on trial. What 
18 • 259 



Source Problems In United States History 

have been its fruits? More or less in all places, 
pride and indolence in the Clergy; ignorance and 
servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry 
and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Chris- 

5 tianity for the ages in which it appeared in its great- 
est lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages 
prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Pro- 
pose a restoration of this primitive state in which 
its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of 

lo their flocks; many of them predict its downfall. 
On which side ought their testimony to have great- 
est weight, when for or when against their interest? 
8. Because the establishment in question is not 
necessary for the support of Civil Government. If 

15 it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil 
Government only as it is a means of supporting 
Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter pur- 
pose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If 
Religion be not within [the] cognizance of Civil 

20 Government, how can its legal establishment be 
said to be necessary to civil Government? What 
influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments 
had on Civil Society ? In some instances they have 
been seen to exact a spiritual tyranny on the ruins 

25 of Civil authority; in many instances have they 
been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny ; 
in no instance have they been the guardians of the 
liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to sub- 
vert the public liberty, may have found an estab- 

260 



Religious Toleration and 1' recdorn \n Vi 



'^ 



iruiiiid 



lishcd clcrj^y convenient auxiliaries. A just govern- 
ment, instituted U; secure Sc j^erjjetuate it, neerls them 
not. Such a governmc*nt will ?je hc^t supyjorted by 
jjrotectin^^ every citizen in the enjoyment of his 

5 Religion with the same equal hand which j^rotects 
his person and his \jro\ji:Tty\ by neither invading 
the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect 
to mv'd,(\ii those of another. 

(). Because the jjroposed estaVjlishment is a de- 

^'' IMTtnrc: from that generous j^olicy, v/hich, ofTering 
an asylum to the jjersecuted and ojjpressed of every 
Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our coun- 
try, and an accession to the number of its citizens. 
What a rrjelancholy mark is the Bill of sudden 

'-> degeneracy? Instead of holding fort,h an asylum 
to the x^ersecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. 
It dc^radc-s from the equal rank of Citizens all those 
whose ojjinions in Religion do not bend to those of 
the l>egislative authority. Distant as it may be, in 

'■'^ its present form, from the Inquisition it differs from 
it only in degree, ^i'he one is the first stefj, the 
other the last in the career of intolerance. The 
magnanimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in 
foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon 

■s on our Coast, v/aming him to seek some other 
haven, where liberty and philanthropy in their due 
extent may offer a more certain rej^ose from his 
trouVjles. . . . 

12. Because, the xx>licy of the bill is adverse to 
261 



Source Problems in United States History 

the diffusion of the Hght of Christianity. The first 
wish of those who ought to enjoy this precious 
gift, ought to be that it may be imparted to the 
whole race of mankind. Compare the number of 

5 those who have as yet received it with the nuniber 
still remaining under the dominion of false Religions ; 
and how^ small is the former ! Does the policy of the 
bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at 
once discourages those who are strangers to the light 

10 of [revelation] from coming into the Region of it; 
and countenances, by example the nations who con- 
tinue in darkness, in shutting out those who might 
convey it to them. Instead of leveling as far as 
possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of 

IS truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian 
timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence 
against the encroachments of error. . . . 

15. Because, finally, 'the equal right of every 
citizen to the free exercise of his religion according 

20 to the dictates of conscience,' is held by the same 
tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its 
origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh 
its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we 
consult the Declaration of those rights which pertain 

25 to the good people of Virginia, as the 'basis and 
foundation of government,'^ it is enumerated with 
equal solemnity, or rather with studied emphasis. 
Either then, we must say, that the will of the Legis- 

*Decl. Rights- title: [Note in the original], 
262 



Religious 'JVjJcration and J' reedom in Virginia 

lature is the only measure of their authority; and 
that in the jjlenitude of this authority, they may 
sweep away ah our fundamental rights; or that they 
are bound to leave this partieular right untouched 
5 and sacred: Either we must say that they may 
controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the 
trial by jury, may swallow up the Executive and 
Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may de- 
spoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect them- 

10 selves into an independent and hereditary assembly: 
or we must say, that they have no authority to enact 
into a law the Bill under consideration. We the sub- 
scribers say, that the General Assembly of this Com- 
monwealth have no such authority: And that no 

1.5 effort may be omitted on our j^art against so dan- 
gerous a usurpation, we ojjpose to it, this remon- 
strance; earnestly X->raying, as we are in duty bound, 
that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by 
illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on 

20 one hand, turn their councils from every act which 
would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the 
trust committed to them: and on the other, guide 
them into every measure which may be worthy of 
his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, 

25 and may establish more firmly the liberties, the pros- 
perity, and the Happiness of this Commonwealth. 
14. Statutes of Virginia, etc. Vol. XII. [Section 
two of the Act for Establishing ReHgious 
Freedom, December 17, 1785.] 
263 



Source Problems in United States History 

Page 86. 

Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That no 
man shall be compelled to frequent or support any 
religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor 

5 shall be enforced, restrained, molested or burthened 
in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on 
account of his religious opinions or belief; but that 
all men shall be free to profess, and by argument 
to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, 

10 and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, 
or affect their civil capacities. 



PROBLEM V 

v.— Relation of Eastern States to the Develop 
ment of the West, ly^S-i^S^ 



Relation of Eastern States to the Development 
of the West, 1785-1832 

J 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM 

THE early history of that portion of the United States 
known as the West is concerned principally with 
the acquisition of the territory beyond the AUeghanies, 
the process of distributing the land to the people and the 
formation of new states and their relation to the nation. 
The problems here set forth are related to the second and 
third topics mentioned. They were real problems be- 
cause of the conflicting ideals and forces which were the 
chief factors in determining the processes mentioned. 

Fundamentally this period of the development of the 
West was a part of that perennial struggle with which we 
are so familiar — the struggle between aristocracy and 
democracy, conservatism and liberalism, rich and poor, 
the rights of property and the rights of men, capital and 
labor, etc. This struggle for power, wealth, glory or 
prestige of any kind, by individuals, groups, classes, sec- 
tions or nations, means inevitably that some will try to 
gain at the expense of others, and in the process the lib- 
erties of the many are often sacrificed for the interest 
of the few. In that important and unique phase of Ameri- 
can history known as the ** Westward Movement " we have 
good illustrations of these contending forces, and in the 
arguments set forth by the partisans of the various plans 

267 



Source Problems in United States History 



1 



for the solution of the western problem, the student has 
the opportunity of discovering how facts were distorted to 
suit the convenience of the party seeking particular ends, 
how the interests of individuals, groups and sections were 
emphasized for purely selfish purposes, and how there 
were honest differences of opinion with respect to those 
policies which would be best for the nation as a whole. 
He will also appreciate the difficulty of the historian in 
estimating the significance of historical facts and forces, 
and discover that the history of the West, as well as other 
sections of the country, is concealed in docimients that 
exhibit false assertions, unwarranted or conflicting inter- 
pretations, opposing policies, each claimed by their 
authors as the most desirable, and particularly illustra- 
tions of the struggle between liberal and conservative 
forces in their relation to the development of the West. 

Before the American revolution the struggle for the 
possession of the Mississippi Valley had occupied the at- 
tention of three nations — England, France, and Spain. 
It resulted, in 1763, in the elimination of France and the 
division of the territory between England and Spain, 
with the Mississippi River as a boundary, but with its 
free navigation in doubt owing to Spain's possession of 
New Orleans and the control of the mouth of the river. 
During the first few years of the Revolutionary War, some 
of the members of Congress had serious doubts as to 
whether it was desirable to acquire the territory from 
the Alleghanies to the Mississippi River, or to insist on 
the free navigation of the same in case the territory were 
acquired. In the great stress of the war, 1779, some of 
the members believed that it was desirable to sacrifice 
the free navigation of the Mississippi, at least tem- 
porarily, in order to gain the support of Spain against 
England. Some believed that it was desirable to 
have Spain in possession of the river because it would 

268 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

bind the western settlers to the East and make it easier 
to control them. 

We have evidence of still deeper reasons for the hos- 
tility of some of the members of Congress to the develop- 
ment of the West. Gerard, the French ambassador to 
the United States, wrote Vergennes, August 12, 1778, 
that the dominant spirit of Congress was one of individual 
self-interest. The states north of Maryland had little 
interest in the West at this date. New England and New 
York v/ere interested in expansion to the Northeast. 
There was fear that the acquisition of the Southwest, in 
particular, would strengthen the South. Gouvemeur 
Morris, for example, declared that on no condition was he 
willing to strengthen this section.^ There was also the 
natural antipathy which might be expected from states 
having a desire for commercial expansion towards the 
formation of large agricultural states in the West. Al- 
though early opposition to the acquisition of the western 
territory was overcome, we have in these differences of 
opinion a clew to the understanding of the later relations 
of the eastern states to the West, so far as it depended 
on the legislation of Congress for its development. 

After the treaty of peace of 1783 settled the question 
of the acquisition of western territory and, in theory at 
least, the free navigation of the Mississippi River, the 
North Atlantic States seemed willing to sacrifice, for a 
period of twenty-five or thirty years, the free navigation 
of the Mississippi, in return for a treaty with Spain giving 
commercial advantages to the East. The famous treaty 
negotiated by John Jay and Gardoqui, minister to the 
United States from Spain, was presented to Congress 
in the summer of 1786. Important votes and motions 
on the acceptance of this treaty and the question of the 

^ See doctiment 18 below; and also document 6 in which Grayson 
expresses the opinion that this was the view of the North as a whole. 

269 



Soiiive Problems in United States History 

free navigation of the Mississippi for tlio next two years, 
show that the rqnvsonlativos of the seven North AtlatUic 
States (^l^ehiware not represented) usually voted to.^ether 
ajT:ainst measures favorable to the West on this subjeet, 
while those from the southern states voted in fa\'or of 
the West. 

When the states havin^; claims to the western lands ceded 
the s:une to the national i^cn-ernment, and the vital prob- 
lem arose respeetini^ the methods of distributini; ami 
settling; this teiTitory, the votes in Congress appear io 
show that the representatives of the North Atlantic 
States were hostile to the rapid deveU')pment of the West. 
They were accused of making it diHicult and costly for 
the average settler to acquire legal title to the better 
lands, through purposeful delays in extinguishing the 
titles of the Indians to western lands, through slow siu-- 
veys, infrequent sales and refusal to sell land in small 
tracts. It was asserted that they were hostile to i)re- 
emption rights, reduction in the price of the refuse or 
unsold lands, even after they had been on the market for 
many years, and to a cession of the ]niblic lands to the 
states in which they were located; and finally that they 
wished to have large tracts of public land in western 
states ceded to eastern states, and especially to have the 
proceeds of the sales of public lands distributed to all the 
states for the purpose of education and internal im])rove- 
ments, on the basis of their proportionate re])resentation 
in the House of Representatives. How far was this as- 
serted attitude due to purely sectional motives, viz., a fear 
on the part of the North Atlantic States of the growth of 
the power of the West, and particularly of a imion of the 
South and West against the Northeastern States; an4 
how far was it due to an honest dilTerence of o])inion re-, 
specting the best methods of distributing the public 
lands, and the policy to be pursued with respect to that} 

270 



Rol.ition of l'..is((in S(.iUs to \\]c WVsl 

relation i'li (ho wosUmii slalos to Iho nation, wlm-li wonM 
\)v host, i'or tluM'onnt i-v as a whoKv'' 'V\\r ilocntncnts tnaN' 
often he inliMprcMed lo pioxt- cillier ol I lie ahoxc \i(>\vs. 
To (livSeover the r(\il njotu'es helnnd the \n\c i)( an imh- 
vidual, or of a I'j'oni) repreiuMil nu; a scdion of (he eotni- 
try, is often a (hOienh, prohlejn; l>nt the ehort tnnsl he 
made in order to a|)preeiati' and nnd(<r;;land I he natinc 
of the prohl(Mns inxolxt^l in I he idalion ol lh(> <'a:;l<Mn 
states to the West, in the peno<l tnidci" e«in;;idei"al ion. 

In (U'fensi^ of {\\c apparent tcndencN' ol tiie repr( senta- 
tivcs of North Allanlie .Stale;; to \<.lc a);ain:;l the in^ 
tcrcsts of the West note the jollowni);. Tin- eonnlty 
started with a heavy d("l>l, an<l rcxrnnc had In he n|>- 
taiiu^l either from laxi'S or from the sale ol pnhhc lands 
'IMie latter seemed more desirahle to many, even lli«ni)di 
this poliey made* it neeessary t,o 1<<'<-|) np the juice ol the 
piihlic! lan<ls. A):ain, a, rapid :icl llcmcnt ol the Wr;;l 
wonld spread the jjopnlalioii «>\('i- a wide area lor only 
the heller lands wonld h(^ taUen np. Laiyc s|)aisely 
j)opnlat('(l rej;io!)S wonld mak<^ it <li((ieiill, and cx] M'n;;iv(^ 
to protect settlers IVom the Indians, and wonld hnider 
the set,tin^^ up of a i'ovm'I iiinent winch would m,d:e lilc 
and pro])erty seem*: lliron);h a KV.ime <»! law and 
onU;r. ('ompa,etn(;ss of settlement lia<l heen .1 New I'aij^- 
land poliey from the first, hecanse only l)y sncli «h:;' 
trihnlion of popnlaiion conid an oideily, pro|,^ressive ;nid 
safe; S(;t,tlement he made lavorahN; to the I'apid dev<'lo|>- 
mcnt of ('(hieation and rehjnon. ImuI hermoic it was. im- 
possihU; to (^xtin^Miish tlu; Indian title;; and nial;e a<'einale 
surveys fjniekly enoii^dl to acconnnodate innn<dial,ely all 
who mi^dit wish t,o cmij^^nite to the We;;l.. Ihil, to eon<'ede 
these ))oints wonld (*xpoS(! the s-ettlcf t,o)M'eal, danjM-r and 
make; hij; tith; to land imeertain and in;;ecnre. It wa;; a,- 
sert(ul that laws against sc|nattin;% oi- ;;e|,l,liii;' on nn.nr- 
vcyed land, wen; justified lor the y(,<,(\ ol Ihc ;,(tllei* 



Source Problems in United States History 

himself. To grant pre-emption rights would simply en- 
courage settlers to break the laws. Still again it was as- 
serted that the original states had a valid claim to a 
share of the public lands and to a portion of the proceeds 
of the sales for the same purposes, viz., education and 
internal improvement, for which Congress rather freely 
granted public lands to the new states, on the ground 
that the West was acquired solely by the blood and 
treasure of the eastern states. 

Opinion in the West, and to a large extent in the South, 
was hostile to these views, not necessarily in each case for 
purely sectional reasons, but because of an honest dif- 
ference of opinion respecting the best policy for the whole 
country. For example, it was held that revenue was far 
less important than opportunity for the poor man to 
better his economic condition. Therefore the price of 
land should be very low or even given away to settlers. 
It was held further that the settler should have the 
opportunity of locating the best lands, without waiting 
for the slow process of extinguishing Indian titles to the 
land and the making of accurate surveys. When the 
government caught up with the settler or squatter, he 
should be granted pre-emption rights, viz., the oppor- 
tunity to purchase one hundred and sixty acres surround- 
ing his house and improvements, up to two weeks before 
the commencement of land sales in the district where 
he had located (proposition of 1820). Finally the best 
lands were soon taken up in any particular district where 
surveys had been made, so that it was considered unjust 
to force settlers to purchase poor lands or wait a con- 
siderable time for the survey of fresh lands. Since Con- 
gress refused to limit the sale of lands to actual settlers, 
eastern speculators were continually securing the best 
lands and holding them at high prices, thus hindering 
rapid settlement. Finally the rights of the new states to 

272 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

the title to the public lands within their boundaries were 
asserted, because only thus could they be on a complete 
equality with the original states, a right guaranteed them 
by the constitution. These opposing argimients, and 
others of a similar character, indicate how the docimients 
may be open to more than one interpretation. 

It is apparent also that the documents may be inter- 
preted from a purely sectional standpoint. Note some of 
the reasons stated for opposition to the rapid develop- 
ment of the West. It would hinder the political and eco- 
nomic supremacy of the North Atlantic States. On the 
basis of a struggle for sectional advantage the North At- 
lantic States feared the rapid growth of the West, because 
this would endanger their control of Congress and their re- 
tention of the balance of power in the Senate and House. 
Retaining this power they could prevent or delay the for- 
mation of new states in the West and the acquisition of 
additional territory further west. Thus they could pre- 
vent what was feared above all else, a possible combina- 
tion of the South and West against the North Atlantic 
States. From an economic standpoint, this section desired 
a high protective tariff, and a large labor supply with a 
low wage-scale. It wished to prevent a depreciation of its 
settled lands and to cause its unsettled lands, particularly 
those in Maine and New York, to be settled. It wished 
to create a large population devoted to both agriculture 
and manufactures, in order to provide home markets for 
manufactured goods and plentiful food supplies. A large 
population would secure a large representation in the 
House of Representatives, and thus a protective tariff 
and legislation favorable to commerce and trade would be 
secured, and probably also financial control of the coun- 
try through the control of banking facilities. With respect 
to the development of the West, its desire was to keep 
complete control of the public lands in Congress for the 

273 



Source Problems in United States History 

purpose of using them in a manner to safeguard its polit- 
ical and economic interests. With respect to the South it 
wished to prevent the extension of the slavery system, and 
hence the acquisition of more western territory, and any re- 
duction in the tariff, one of the greatest wishes of the South. 

These desires, both political and economic, could be 
secured by preventing or seriously delaying the settle- 
ment of the western lands by the methods already indi- 
cated. The effect of all these measures would certainly 
prevent or greatly delay emigration to the West from the 
North Atlantic States. In consequence the population 
of the latter section would increase rapidly and all the 
political and economic desires mentioned would be as- 
sured. It will be noted that great emphasis was laid 
by the western representatives on the efforts of the North 
Atlantic States to prevent emigration to the West. 

Whether this policy was consciously carried out by the 
political leaders of this section or not, it is a fact that 
up to 1835 only three states were admitted to the Union 
from the original Northwest Territory (Ohio, Indiana, 
and Illinois), and only two from the Louisiana purchase 
(Louisiana and Missouri) — ^five states in all from the 
West proper ^ from 1796 to 1835. No state was admitted 
from 1820 to 1836. This situation was made possible, in 
part by delaying settlement, in part by spreading the 
western population over a large area of territory, and in 
part by requiring a relatively large population, about 
sixty thousand, before allowing a territory to be formed 
into a state. This explains in part the success of the 
North Atlantic Section on two great issues up to 1830, the 
tariff and the public lands. It retained political control 

^Mississippi and Alabama, admitted in 1817 and 1819 respec- 
tively, had most of the characteristics of the West and favored the 
liolicies of this section, but on the important question of the tariff 
yotcd with the South, 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

in spite of the combination of the South and West ' against 
it. Of course the pohtical leaders of this section could 
not actually prevent emigration to the West, for there 
were many counterforces. Washington, Madison, Adams, 
Benton, and even Webster, all called attention to the lack 
of harmony between some of the political leaders of this 
section and the people at large. There were certain fac- 
tors that forced emigration to the West, such as the at- 
tractive power of rich, comparatively cheap lands, the 
determination of some to emigrate and take up land as 
squatters regardless of the laws, the temptation to specu- 
late in the public lands, the pressure of population, and, 
after 1820, the development of easy means of communica- 
tion through the steamboat and canals (Erie Canal, 
1825), — in short, the opportunity for economic better- 
ment for the average man. In addition, the fact that 
the West was an outlet for the discontented and dissatis- 
fied among all classes, especially for the laboring classes — 
the foundation of the growing industrial democracy of 
the Northeast — gave further emphasis to the observation 
of Washington in 1785, "As to restraining the citizens of 
the Atlantic States from transplanting themselves to that 
soil [West], when prompted by interest or inclination, you 
might as well attempt, while our governments are free, to 
prevent the reflux of the tide when you had got it into 
your rivers." 

The South for the most part supported the demands 

^The Northeast received the support of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
and even of Kentucky, on the tariff of 1824 and 1828, and to some 
extent was aided by Ohio and Kentucky on c^uestions relating to 
the public lands. Compare document 38 Vjelow. The tendency of 
the new states, formed from the Northwest Territory, to support 
the Northeast was due to the increase, after 1815, of emigrants 
from the latter section, the development of northern markets through 
better transportation (Erie Canal, 1825), the growth of nationalism, 
^nd bejief in Clay's "American System." 

275 



Source Problems in United States History 

of the West on the question of the pubHc lands. She 
favored the squatter — his method of settlement, and his 
demand for pre-emption. The South was interested in 
the extension of the slavery system and a low tariff, and 
hence desired the acquisition of additional western terri- 
tory. She wished to decrease the political power of the 
North Atlantic States, and the influence of the manu- 
facturing and trading interests; hence her anxiety to 
strengthen agricultural interests by the admission of 
new states in the West and Southwest. It is this play 
of sectional interests that one must note with care, for 
it was the interpla}^ of these special interests of the 
North, South, and West which governed the legislation of 
Congress respecting the distribution of the public lands 
and the relation of the western states to the nation. 
Senator Hayne declared that the country was divided 
into two parties, one of which believed that the West 
had been fairly and liberally treated and the other "em- 
bracing the entire West" quite to the contrary. The 
student should note how far the documents give evi- 
dence of the one or the other contention. 

It was in the period 182 5-1 830 that the question of 
the public lands reached a crisis. There was great dis- 
satisfaction in the West because of the failure of Con- 
gress to reduce the price of the refuse or unsold lands 
[documents 24-26]. Senator Benton proposed a reduc- 
tion in the price of lands each year for four years until 
the price became twentv-five cents per acre. After lands 
were offered at fifty cents per acre without sale, they 
were to be donated to actual settlers. After they were 
offered at twenty-five cents per acre, if not sold within 
one year, they were to be ceded to the states in which 
they were located. The bill was brought to a vote in 
April, 1828, and was defeated in the Senate 25 to 21. 
]Every senator from the North Atlantic States voted 

276 



Relation of the Eastern States to the West 

against the measure excepting one from Delaware. A 
second method of obtaining rehef was the movement in 
progress in 1828-9, under the leadership of Governor 
Edwards of Illinois, to induce Congress to cede the title 
of all the public lands to the states in which they were 
located. The Louisiana and Indiana legislatures jmssed 
resolutions to this effect December 22, 1828, and January 
9, 1829, respectively. If this plan had succeeded many 
of the problems of the West with respect to price, rapid 
settlement, growth of political power, etc., would have 
been solved. 

Contemporary with these efforts, 1 824-1 829, the North 
Atlantic States were maneuvering to secure a distribu- 
tion of the proceeds of the sale of the public lands among 
all the states according to their ratio of representation 
in the House [documents 27-30]. John Quincy Adams 
records in his diary a conversation with Henry Clay, De- 
cember 31, 1828, in which the latter "spoke to me with 
great concern of the prospects of the country — the threats 
of disunion from the South, and the graspings after all 
the public lands, which are disclosing themselves in the 
Western States." It was to checkmate such efforts, in 
part, that Mr. Hunt, of Vermont, introduced a resolution in 
the House of Representatives, December 17, 1829, on the 
expediency of distributing the annual proceeds of the sales 
of the public lands to all the states for the purpose of edu- 
cation and internal improvements according to their pro- 
portionate representation in the House of Representa- 
tives. Thus the larger share of the proceeds of the sales 
would fall to the North Atlantic States, and money would 
be diverted from the national treasury so that the debt 
would be kept up and hence an excuse provided for a 
high tariff to provide revenue to pay off the debt. The 
South was opposed to this measure because it would in- 
terfere with a reduction of the tariff. The West thought 

277 



Source Problems In United States History 

that it was a plan on the part of the North Atlantic States 
to use the public lands in a way to serve eastern economic 
interests; that it would interfere with pre-emption, a re- 
duction in the price of the public lands ; and their cession 
to the states in which they were located, and other plans 
which would lead to a rapid settlement of the West. 

On December 29, 1829, Senator Foot of Connecticut 
introduced his famous resolution on the desirability of 
limiting the sale of public lands to those already on the 
market. These incidents taken in connection with the 
passage of a high protective tariff bill in May, 1828, so 
obnoxious to the South, paved the way for a more active 
alliance of the South and West against the North Atlantic 
States. Senator Benton of Missouri made a vigorous 
attack on the Foot Resolution, and insisted it was an 
effort to check emigration to the West and strengthen 
the tariff and manufacturing interests by keeping a large 
labor supply in the eastern states. Senator Hayne of 
South Carolina continued the attack, and urged the alli- 
ance of the South and West to gain their respective 
ends — viz., sl low tarifE for the South and control of the 
public lands by the states in which they were located for 
the West. [Emigration question, doctunents 31-38.] 

Webster's speech was an attempt to convince the 
West that the Northeast, and particularly New Eng- 
land, had always been friendly to the West, while the 
South had been opposed. The object was to break up 
the alliance of these two sections, and at the same 
time to offer an alliance of the Northeast and West 
on the basis of internal improvements for the latter. 
Webster feared that the alliance of the South and West 
would endanger the protective tariff. Much of his 
speech was devoted to an attack on the South on the 
question of National vs. State Rights, because he hoped 
to win the West on this issue of Nationalism. Benton 

278 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

declared that this was a move to divert attention from the 
main issue. His attack on the South was a "cannonade, 
to divert the attention of the assailants, his concluding 
motion for indefinite postponement, a signal of retreat 
and dispersion to his entangled friends." This debate 
ended the first chapter, so to speak, of the struggle, 
though many more battles were yet to be fought before 
the question of the public lands was finally settled. 
[Northeast or South favorable to the West, documents 
39-43-] 

11. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

1. The Writings of James Monroe, edited by Stanislaus 
Murray Hamilton, Vol. I. (New York, 1898.) 

The letter given was strictly contemporary and Monroe 
seems to be sure of his statements, though he gives evi- 
dence in other speeches of being very distrustful of the 
northern states. 

2. Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention of 
Virginia, by David Robertson. (Second edition, Rich- 
mond, 1805.) 

This is the collection of debates, first published in 
1788, taken in shorthand by David Robertson. He says, 
in his preface, that they *'were taken down in shorthand, 
as fully and accurately as an ineligible seat, and other 
disadvantageous circumstances permitted the stenog- 
rapher to take them." He adds that he was "governed 
by the most sacred regard to strict justice and impar- 
tiality in taking and transcribing them," but that in some, 
he hopes few instances these difficulties may "have occa- 
sioned a misconception of the meaning of the speakers." 
The first edition he admits was inaccurate and says that 
" it was republished without the aid of a proof -sheet.'* 
In the second edition he says that it was in part revised 

279 



Source Problems in United States History 

and corrected, "by the same stenographer who took them 
down ... by reference to part of the original stenograph- 
ical manuscript [though] . . . part of it has been destroyed." 
He also says that his revision might have been perfect if he 
could "have had some communication with the speakers 
on some points. As he could not communicate with all, 
he declined, for obvious reasons to communicate with 
any.'' This is the material which Jonathan Elliot incor- 
porated in his well-known edition of the debates in the 
various state conventions on the ratification of the con- 
stitution. 

On June 13, 1788, Patrick Henry requested that those 
members of the Virginia convention who had been mem- 
bers of Congress communicate to the convention "the 
transactions of congress relative to the navigation" of 
the Mississippi. Accordingly Madison, Grayson and 
Monroe, and others, all gave their versions of what 
took place. Madison declared " That he had his in- 
formation from his own knowledge, and from a perusal 
of the documents and papers which related to those 
transactions." Grayson and Monroe apparently spoke 
from memory. Madison was extremely anxious for 
the adoption of the constitution, and, though he was 
from Virginia, he defended the attitude of the northern 
states. Grayson and Monroe were distrustful of the 
North in all their speeches. Grayson had been chair- 
man of the committee that formed the land ordinance 
of 1785, and in this transaction, as well as in that of the 
Mississippi, he was sure that the North was working for 
its own interests only. 

3. Register of Debates in Congress, (Washington^ 

1825-1837-) 

The debates of Congress purport to give speeches, 
motions, etc., before this body. They are not always 
verbatim reports. Speeches are condensed, summarized 

280 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

and, as in the case of Benton's, several speeches delivered 
on different dates are brought together to form one con- 
nected speech. 

4. History of the Formation of the Constitution of the 
United States of America, by George Bancroft. Vol. I, 
Appendix. (New York, 1882.) 

The appendix of this volume contains letters and 
papers illustrating the formation of the federal con- 
stitution. This extract is from a long and interesting 
letter of Grayson's, who was chairman of the committee 
to draft an ordinance for the sale of the western lands. 
This letter gives the arguments offered by members of 
the committee for the adoption of the New England or 
the southern system of land distribution. Washington's 
letter, from which an extract is given, states his views on 
the subject. 

5. The Records of the Federal Convention of ijSj, 
edited by Max Farrand. (New Haven, 191 1.) 

This is the latest and most complete edition of the 
various records of the convention which formed the 
constitution. The speeches given were recorded by 
Madison during the convention, but only as to their sub- 
stance. He says that as a rule he wrote them out from 
his daily notes "during the session or within a few finish- 
ing days after its close." Many years after, in 18 19, for 
example, he went over his notes and made additions. 
In the documents given, the portions included in < > 
in Gerry's speech were added by Madison from the 
journal of the convention published in 18 19. 

6. Documents relating to New-England Federalism, 
1 800-181 5, edited by Henry Adams. (Boston, 1877.) 

This voliune contains many letters of New England 
federalists, among them several of Timothy Pickering's. 
He was a violent partisan and strong for the interests of 
New England. 



Source Problems in United States History 

7. Writings of John Quincy Adams, edited by Worth- 
ington Chauncey Ford, Vol. IV. (New York, 1914-) 

The writings of Adams need' no special comment. 
The letter given is dated at St. Petersburg. Perhaps the 
fact that Adams was so far away is one reason why he 
could look on the history of New England from a dif- 
ferent standpoint than if he had commented on this 
question in his native land. 

8. American State Papers. Documents of the Congress 
of the United States in relation to The Public LayidSy Vols. 
IV, VI. (Washington, 1859, i860.) 

This is a reprint of a great variety of documents, 
originally printed in the congressional series. They con- 
sist of reports of committees to Congress, resolutions of 
state legislatures, petitions from -individuals, communi- 
cations from cabinet members, etc. 

9. Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, comprising por- 
tions of His Diary From lygj to 1848, edited by Charles 
Francis Adams, Vol. IX. (Philadelphia, 1876.) 

This is a diary, kept daily, and with criticisms on 
various public measures and men. It, of course, gives 
the personal opinion of Adams and exhibits more or less 
prejudice. The extract given should be compared with 
the letter from his writings. 

10. Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury of the United 
States, Vol. II. (Washington, 1837.) 

This series gives the official communications of the 
secretaries of the Treasury. 

III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

A. The Jay Treaty and the Free Navigation of the Mississippi 
River [Documents i to 10] 

I. Do you agree with Monroe that the Jay treaty *'in reality 
gains us nothing"? Supposing the five points men- 
282 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

tioned were acknowledged to Ixi real gains, would the 
sacrifice of the free navigation of the Mississippi for 
the period stated be justified? Why? 

2. Is there evidence in the treaty and Monroe's letter that 

sectionalism between the North and South and the 
Northeast and West was developing? Are his state- 
ments open to any other interpretation? 

3. Name the seven and five states respectively which voted 

on opposite sides of the question. How do you ac- 
count for this division? 

4. State the seven points given in Monroe's P. S. explaining 

the object of Jay and his followers "in the occlusion of 
the Mississippi." What other interpretation of Jay's 
conduct does Monroe give? Which of the two do you 
favor? Why? 

5. If the most desirable end was to preserve and strengthen 

the Union, how might the treaty be defended as one 
likely to be helpful in this respect? 

6. What prejudices might Monroe and Grayson have had 

which would tend to make them attriVjute false motives 
to the northern representatives? 

7. State the four arguments given by Grayson in favor of 

giving up the free navigation of the Mississippi for the 
period mentioned. What reply would a western man 
have proh>aVjly made to each? 

8. What was the significance of the vote of the seven northern 

states to repeal Jay's instructions? iJid these states 
violate the clause in the articles of confederation which 
declares that nine states must concur in the formation 
of a treaty? If so how do you explain the vote? 

9. Compare Grayson's notions of the attitude of the northern 

states toward the West with those of Monroe. What 
additional argument does Grayson give? 

ID. Is Grayson's explanation of the attitude of the northern 
states toward the free navigation of the Mississippi 
River during and after the war a satisfactory one? 

II. Compare Madison's arguments respecting the attitude of 
the northern states toward the free navigation of the 
283 



Source Problems in United States History 

Mississippi and the West with those of Monroe and 
Grayson. What difference of opinion do you find? 
How do you account for the same? 

12. What significance do you attach to Madison's phrases 

'^ people at large" and "particular citizens"? Where 
in the documents following are similar ideas ex- 
pressed? 

13. What additional reasons does Madison give to explain the 

attitude of the northern states in favor of Jay's treaty? 
Which seem to you to be valid and which invalid 
reasons? 

14. Do you think the northern states were in favor of a "tem- 

porary" or a permanent cession of the free navigation 
of the Mississippi? Why? 

15. What was Grayson's notion of the final effect of a "tem- 

porary cession" and its relation to emigration to the 
West? Is his reasoning sound? 

16. What were Grayson's arguments in denial of Madison's 

assertions that emigration to the West would have the 
same effect on the "Eastern States" as emigration 
"from this country" [the South]? Do you agree? 
Why? What effect did he think emigration from the 
northern states to the West would have on the North 
and South, respectively? 

17. Is Monroe correct in asserting that it was to the interest 

of the northern states to "depress the western country "? 
Why? 

18. Can the five instances mentioned by Senator Benton, in 

which the North and South voted opposite on the 
Mississippi question, be explained in any other way 
than the explanations given by Monroe, Grayson, and 
Benton? 

19. Is Mr. Holmes correct in his notion that Mr. Madison "put 

it all right" in showing the true connection of the East 
and West on the "concession"? Why? 

20. Draw up a list of all the arguments given in favor of the 

acceptance of Jay's treaty. Make a similar list of those 
against it. Which of these arguments appear to b^ 
?84 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

sectional in character and which seem to. be for the 
good of the country as a whole? 

21. Which are weakened by prejudice, bias or jealousy? 

2 2. Do the documents prove to you that Jay and his fol- 
lowers wished to limit the growth of the West? 
Why? 

23. Show how certain documents might be interpreted to the 
contrary. 



B. Relation of Eastern States to the West, 1785- 1815 
[Documents 11 to 23] 

1. State the six views mentioned by Grayson which certain 

members of the committee held with respect to the 
sale of the public lands, and explain each. 

2. Was it desirable to prevent the lands in the original states 

from depreciating, and also prevent interference in 
the sale of lands ''now at market in the individual 
states"? 

3. Why did some fear the result if new states were added to 

the confederacy? 

4. What is the significance of Washington's phrase "under the 

rose"? 

5. Compare the six points mentioned by Grayson with the 

seven mentioned by Monroe in the P. S. of his letter 
to Henry. Which are essentially the same? Which 
emphasize political and which economic reasons? 

6. Is the argument of Holmes a satisfactory answer to that 

of Benton respecting the motive for requiring each town- 
ship to be sold out entire before the next was offered 
for sale? Why did Congress strike out this provision 
of the committee's report? Is there evidence of prej- 
udice or sectional bias in the statements of Benton 
and Holmes? 

7. How do you explain the vote on the motion to reduce the 

size of the tract to 320 acres? Was it to the real ad- 
vantage of the West to have the land sold in tracts 
285 



Source Problems in United States History 

smaller than 040 acres? Why? Ciive reasons to the 
eontrary. 

8. Do you approve of the eontention of Morris respeetiiij; 

property as a means of representation? Why? 

9. WTiat effeet would it have had on Representation in Con- 

gress i7Sc)-iS^^2 from the East and West, if pro^x^rty 
had been made equal with numbers iii reckoning rep- 
resentation? 
[o. Should the nde of representation have Ixxmi fixed so that 
the Atlantic States would have had "a pre\alence in 
the national councils"? Why? Are the throj :u-gii- 
ments given by Morris valid? Why? 

11. Would it have been just, for the rciisons given, to fix "ir- 

revocably" the numl-ter of representatives of the 
Atlantic States and each new state? Would it have 
been politic? Wliy? 

12. \Miat are Mason's arguments for the equality of the new 

western with the easteni states? What dangers docs 
he point out from the inequality? Does he satisfac- 
torily answer the argimients of Morris on the measure 
of representation? 

13. Is the argimient of Morris valid ^s-ith respect to the ability 

of the West to furnish men ** equally enlighteneil " to 
share in the administration? Wliy does he think that 
the "Back members are always most averse to the best 
measures"? 

14. Why did Morris and Gerry think that the western people 

might ruin the Atlantic interests if they got the power? 
Do you agree with these reasons? Why? 

15. Do the documents so far given show that the North or 

South was the chief aggressor in grasping for power? 
Wliat is the opinion of Morris? How does he propose 
to remedy the situation? 

16. What does Morris think would be the effect of an increa^ ^ 

in the power of the South, on the West and North? 

17. Compare Gerry's plan to safeguard the interests of the 

original states, with that of Morris. Which do you 
think would have worked best? 
286 



Relation of P^.astern States to the West 

1 8. Stale Mr. Sherman's argument for the equahty of the new 

western with the ori^^inal statf^. Do you approve of 
Oerry's argument in reply? Why? 

19. What do you infer from the vote on Oerry's motion with 

respect to the attitude of the North and South toward 
the West? 

20. Do the doeuments given from the debates in the Federal 

Ojnvention give evidence of sectionalism North and 
South, and Northeast and West? How may they be 
interpreted to the contrary? 

21. Why did Morris wish Uj govern Louisiana permanently as 

a province? 

22. State Pickering's notions of the West. What does he mean 

by the phrase "we are maintaining their representatives 
in Congress for governing us, who surely <^;an much 
better govern ourselves"? 

23. State the views of John Quincy Adams on the efTect of 

emigration from New England to the West. Do you 
agree with him? Compare his views with those of 
Madison, Mason, and Sherman, 

24. Compare them with those of Monroe, Grayson, Benton, 

Morris, and Gerry. What is your own view of the 
effect that such emigration would have had on New 
England at the date in question? 

25. How does Adams account for the loss of New England in- 

fluence? What effect does he say it has had? Do you 
agree? 

26. What distinction is made by Marlison and Adams respecting 

the views held by political leaders and the people at 
large on emigration from New England? 

27. How do you account for this distinction? Compare Ben- 

ton's views on this point in the last document given 
in this problem. 

28. Do the documents given prove to you that the political 

leaders of the North Atlantic States consciously tried 
to hinder the development of the West for sectional 
advantage? 

29. What documents may be interpreted to the contrary? 

287 



Source Problems in United States History 

C. Questions on the Problem of the Public Lands, 1S25-1S32 
[Documents 24-43] 

1. What alleged effects were produced in the West by a fail- 

ure to reduce the price of the unsold lands, according 
to the memorial of the people of Illinois? Do you 
think these effects were due solely to the cause men- 
tioned? \Yhy? 

2. Which of the two views mentioned by Senator Hayne do 

you favor? Is he correct in saying that the main 
policy of the government had been to gain revenue 
from the public lands rather than to have them set- 
tled rapidly? Do you think that the government 
should have given the lands to the western settlers? 
Why? 

3. Is the criticism given in the report of the committee on 

public lands a just one? Why? 

4. What appears to be the purpose of Hunt's resolution? Do 

you agree with the criticism of Pettis? State the argu- 
ments set forth in the Delaware resolution in favor of 
distribution of the proceeds of the sales of public lands. 
Do you agree? Why? Do you agree with Benton 
that the distribution bill was a ''land tariff' bill"? 
Why? 

5. What lands were to be withdrawn from the market and 

which could still be sold, according to Foot's resolution? 
Why? 

6. Is the criticism of Senator Benton a just one? Does the 

resolution indicate a conscious effort on the part of 
Foot to check emigration? Is there any other inter- 
pretation to be placed on this document? 

7. State Benton's notion of the relation of manufactures, the 

tariff, labor supply and wages, to emigration to the 
West? Do you agree that a high protective tariff 
would tax the South, injure the West and ''pauperize 
the poor of the North"? Give your reason in each 
case. 

8. Do you aq;ree with Benton that Foot's resolution would 

2S8 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

have had a worse effect on emigration to the West than 
a high tariff? Why? 
9. Was the plan of some of the western states to have the 
pubUc lands ceded to them any more an attack on 
the Northeast, than the resolutions of Hunt and 
Foot" were attacks on the West? If the lands had 
been ceded what effect would this have had on emi- 
gration to the West from the North and South? 

10. State Benton's arguments on the relation of limitation of 

sales of public lands to emigration to the West. Do 
you agree with his assertion that the peo^^le of America 
"ought to Ijc for a century to come, essentially an agri- 
cniltural people"? 

11. State the notions of Secretary of the Treasury Rush on the 

relation of manufactures, the tariff, labor supply and 
wages to emigration to the West. Compare these views 
with those of Benton. Which do you favor? Why? 
Was Rush in favor of checking emigration to the 
Wast? 

12. If the ratio of capital to population were "kept on the in- 

crease," would there necessarily be an increase in the 
compensation for labor and an improvement in the 
"most numerous classes of the community"? 

13. If so, would this improvement take place more quickly 

under this plan than one which would give "the most 
nimierous classes" opportunity to acquire lands in the 
West quickly and at very little expense? Do you agree 
with Rush that at this date it was desirable grad- 
ually to reduce the excess of the country's agricult- 
ural population "over that engaged in other voca- 
tions"? Compare the views of Rush with those of 
Benton on this point. 

14. If the government in reality offered a bounty in favor of 

agricultural pursuits, through a low price for the public 
lands, was Rush not justified in asking for a bounty 
for the encouragement of manufactures through a pro- 
tective tariff? Why? 

15. Comment on the phrase "The eye of legislation, intent 

289 



Source Problems in United States History 

upon the whole goo<Li of the nation, will kx)k to each 
part, not separately as a part, but in conjunction with 
the whole." 

i6. Wliat is the relation between the establishment of domestic 
manufactures and emigration to the unsettled parts of 
the country, according to the memorial of the tariff 
convention of 1832? Do you agree that this is an ad- 
vantage? Why? 

17. Compare Mr. Robinson's arguments against a limitation 
of emigration from the older states to the West with 
those of Mr. Rush in favor of the Siune. Which do you 
favor? Why? 

iS. State Mr. Ewing's arguments in favor of the views of 
Mr. Rush, on the relation of manufactures to emigration 
to the West. Compare with those of Benton. Which 
do you favor? Why? 

iQ. State the views of John Quincy Adams on the relations of 
North and West in 1S20-30. Explain just how the 
** manufacturing and free-labor interest of the North and 
East" would be sacrificed. 

20. Do you agree with Webster's assertions that the East had 

not at any time '*sho\NTi an illiberal policy towards the 
West," or ever ** manifested hostility to the West," or 
ever tried to restrain emigration to the West? 

21. In view of Benton's statement of the vote on the passage 

of the Northwest Ordinance how do you account for the 
statement of Webster that ''this great measure again 
was carried by the North and by the North alone"? 

22. Did New England and Webster have the same attitude 

toward the tariff from 1824-1830, as in the period up 
to 1824? Why does Webster fail to refer to the tariff 
of 1828, or to Hunt's or to Foot's resolution? 

23. Was the attitude of New England on internal improvements 

due entirely to her interest in the West and its develop- 
ment? 

24. Compare Webster's interpretation of the report of Secre- 

tary Rush with that given by Benton, Hayne, and 
Ewing. What difference do you observe? 
290 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

25. Do you agree that the attitude and votes of New England 

on the acts of 1820-21 "may be taken as samples and 
specimens of all the rest"? 

26. On the whole does Webster prove to your satisfaction, that 

"no portion of the country has acted with either more 
liberality or more intelligence on the subject of the 
Western lands in the New States than New England"? 

27. Do you agree with Benton that the Foot resolution and 

that referring to the surrendering of the public lands in 
the new states to the "avarice of the old," was proof of 
the "relative affection which the two Atlantic sections 
of the Union bear to the West"? 

28. What distinction drxis Benton make in the attitude of dif- 

ferent classes of the population of New England towanl 
the West? Compare these views with those of John 
Quincy Adams in his letter to Waterhouse. What in- 
ference do you draw? 

29. Why did Benton decline the offer of an alliance of New 

England with the West against the South? 

30. Draw up a list of arguments, obtained by interpreting each 

docniment given when possible, in a way to show that 
the North Atlantic States were not hostile to the de- 
velopment of the West. Make a similar list to the 
contrary. 

31. It has been asserted that "The exhibitions of hostility which 

the West was prone to cite were fancied rather than 
real." Are the documents, in your opinion, in favor 
of or against this view? 

32. Indicate all cases you can find in the documents of what 

appear to be misstatement, distortion or exaggeration 
of facts; prejudice or insincerity on the part of the 
speaker; opinions set forth as facts; conclusions based 
on insufficient evidence; conflicting interpretations; 
facts interpreted in a way to further sectional ends; 
double interpretations, one indicating sectional ends, 
the other the interests of the nation as a whole. 



20 



IV. The Sources 

I. The Writings of James Monroe, edited by S. M. 
Hamilton, Vol. I, pp. 144-151. [James Mon- 
roe to Patrick Henry.] 

New York, Aug. 12, 1786. 

5 Dear Sir, — I have wished to communicate for 
sometime since to you an account of a transaction 
here, for your sentiments respecting it, but have 
declined from the want of a cypher, that of the 
delegation being we fear lost. The aff- however 

[0 has come to such a crisis and is of such high impor- 
tance to the U. S. & ours in particular, that I shall 
risque the communication without that cover. 
Jay, you know, is intrusted with the negotiation 
with the Sp" resident here for the free naviga- 

ts tion of the Mississippi & the boundaries between 
Georgia and the Floridas; his instructions, altho' 
they authorize by implication the formation of a 
treaty of commerce, confine him expressly with re- 
spect to those points, & prohibit his entering into 

20 any engagement whatever wh. shall not stipulate 
them in our favor. Upon my arrival here in 
Dec- last (having been previously well acquainted 

292 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

with Mr. Jay) in conversation with him I found he 
had agreed with Gardoqui to postpone the subject 
of the Mississippi &c, in the first instance & to take 
up that of a commerd treaty; that in this they 
5 had gone so far as that Mr. Jay was possessed of the 
principles on wh. he wo^ agree to make it, upon 
condition on our part, of a forbearance of the use of 
the Mississippi for 25 or 30 years. I soon found in 
short that Mr. Jay was desirous of occluding the 

10 Mississippi and of making what he term'd advan- 
tageous terms in the treaty of commerce the means 
of effecting it. Whether he suppos'd I was of his 
opinion or not, or was endeavoring to prevail on 
me to be so, I cannot tell, but as I expressed no senti- 

15 ment on the subject he went further, & observ'd 
'that if the affr. was brought to the view of Con- 
gress they wo^ most probably disagree to it, or 
if they' sho"? approve the project, conduct them- 
selves so indiscreetly as to suffer it to become known 

20 to the French & Engl^ residents here & thus de- 
feat it. To avoid this he -said it occurr'd to him as 
expedient to propose to Congress that a Committee 
be appointed to controul him in the negotiation, to 
stand to him in the room of Congress & he to 

25 negotiate under the Committee.' I then reminded 
him of the instructions from our State respecting 
the Mississippi to the delegation & of the impos- 
sibihty of their concurring in any measures of the 
kind. Our communications on this subject ended 

293 



Source rioMcins in I nitcd vSt.ucs History 

frvnu that time. l";\^'.: :':u^ .■.•.■•\.:/ .-:" Colo. i"5ray- 
sou I cxMnnunu«.\iu\i ;o inir. .iV, , -a >c v^vinnstanoos, 
with my opinions on theni. l-'rotn that tinu\ aiui I 
h.u". -.w.s.^ ■. : .> boliovo ho ]\ad bo);ini ovot\ boforo tny 
5 arnxMi. wo havo kiunvii of his ititni^Aiiui; with tho 
moinboi-s to oarry tho pouit. On :;, of May ho 
addrossod a. lot tor to l^oucfoss piwnsoly \\\ tho scM\ti- 
mont abovo. statiiiv; ditViouUios in tho no>;otiations 
iS: proposiiiv; that 'a (.^oiuniilttv bo appoint od with 

1^^ full powor to .::\\: <\: ittstruct \\'\u\ on ONor\- point 
relativo to tho proposod troaty with Spain.' As 
we knew the object was to extrioate hinisoh' from 
the instniotions respeotiui^ the Mississippi wo oi 
course opposed it. We fouTid ho had oi\i;av;od tho 

l.^ eastont states in the itttrii^-ue. especially Mass:, 
that New York. Jersey vK: ron'* wore itt favor 
of it L^' either absohitoly decided or so much 
so as to proniiso little prospect o\ chani;o. The 
Committee propos'd by the Secretary was ad- 

^^ mitted v^enerally to bo without tho powers oi Con- 
gress. Sinee o states oitly can v^ivo an instruction 
for tho formation of a troaty. to appoint a C\mu 
mitteowith the power of o states was ai;T<.\\i to be 
a subvei*sion of the govt. \- therefore improper. 

as The letter however was reforr'd io a Commit ttv, 
who ultiniatoly agreed to report that tho C\>m- 
mittee be dischaT*gt\i ».^- the subject referred to a 
Committee of the whole X' the Seer'' ordered to at- 
tend, lie did so, and come (^sic") t'orward t'ully with 

294 



Rfrhition of V/A'.rcrr] States to the West 

th^: J J an of a (/jmmcrc] treaty condition'd with the 
for?Ararana:; of the uise of the Mississix/l/i for 25 or 
30 years, with a k/n^ written sxxxx:h, or ntr^>fjrt, in 
favrjr of it. 'i'he project is in sl few wr/rds this: 
> ' J ^rhat the merchan*'* of America & Sp"" shall 
enjoy, the former in the xxjrts of Sp" & the Ca- 
naries, the latter in those of the U. S. the rights 
of native merchan*'* recix^rocally. 2. 71iat the same 
tonnage shall 1'Xi paid on the shij^s of the two p^riA(f.i 

"> in the f:^rnh.'ff(s of the productions & the manufactures 
of the 2 fyrjuntriif^. 3. That the ^'^w/'i /t/i^ manufact- 
ures & j^roductions of the United States ("tobacco 
only axcj^jUA which shall rx/ntinue undc^ its ]:;res- 
ent regulations; may be imyx^rted in American or 

is Syjanish vessels into any of his majesty's x>orts afore- 
said in like manner a>i if they were the productions 
of Spain. And on the other hand that the hrmrx fule 
manufactures & pro'-luctions of his majesty's Do- 
minions may be imporf.(^\ into the U. S. in Sp" 

20 or American vessels, in like Tn^nnf:r as if they v/^-^re 
tho'/i of the said Stat^^, and further that all such 
duties and imjjosts as may mutually h>e thought 
necessary to lay on them by either party, shall be 
ascertained & regu later! on principles of exaci; 

25 reciprocity by a tariff to Vx; form'd by a convention 
for the xjuryjose, to be negotiated & made within 
ryn^ y^ar after the exchange of the ratification of 
this treaty and in the meantime that they shall 
severally jjay in the ports of each other the duties 

20:; 



Source Problems in United States History 

of natives only. 4. IMasts Sz timber shall be bought 
here for the royal navy^ provided that upon their 
carriage to Spain they shall cost no more than if 
they were bought elsewhere. 5. That in considera- 
5 tion of these advantages to the U. S. they agree to 
forbear the use of the Mississippi for 25 or 30 years, 
the terms for which the treaty shall last.' This 
treaty independent of the sacrifice, I consider as a 
very disadvantageous one & such as we should not 

10 accept, since it in reality gains us nothing & sub- 
jects to very high restrictions, such as exist in none 
of our other treaties, alt ho' they are in effect bad 
enough. But they are to be justified especially 
those of France and Holland in the motives which 

15 led to them, to bring those powers into the war. 
The subject w^as referred to a Committee of the whole 
on Thursday last who after debate rose and reported 
that they have come to no decision and require 
leave to sit again. The delegation of Mass. moved 

20 in committee that the ultimatum in his instruc- 
tions respecting the Mississippi be repealed, in 
which event he would have unlimited powers to 
act at pleasure. This they said might be carried 
by 7 states. We observed that without the ulti- 

^5 matum the instruction would be a new one, and of 
course 9 states necessary to it. The subject will 
again be taken up in a few days. It appears mani- 
fest they have 7 states & we 5, Maryland inclusive, 
with the southern states. Delaware is absent. It 

296 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

also appears that they will go on under 7 states in the 
business & risque the preservation of the confeder- 
acy on it. We have & shall throw every possible 
obstacle in the way of the measure, protest against 
5 the right of 7 either to instruct or ratify, give in- 
formation of this to Mr. Jay & the Sp^ resident 
so that neither may be deceived in the busi- 
ness. This is one of the most extraordinary trans- 
actions I have ever known, a minister negotiating 

10 expressly for the purpose of defeating the object of 
his instructions, and by a long train of intrigue & 
management seducing the representatives of the 
states to concur in it. It is possible some, or per- 
haps one, fin which case it will be even) member 

15 may change his sentiments, but as he risqued his 
reputation upon carrying it, it is to be presumed 
he had engaged them too firmly in the business to 
leave a possibility of their forsaking him. This, 
however, is not the only subject of consequence I 

20 have to engage your attention to. Certain it is that 
committees are held in this town of Eastern men 
and others of this State upon the subjects of dis- 
memberment of the States east of the Hudson from 
the Union & the erection of them into a separate 

25 govt. To what lengths they have gone I know not, 
but have assurances as to the truth of the above 
position, with this addition to it, that the measure 
is talked of in Mass. familiarly, & is supposed to 
have originated there. 

297 



Source Problems in United States History 

. . . P. S. The object in the occlusion of the Mis- 
sissippi on the part of these people so far as it is 
extended to the interests of their States (for those 
of a private kind gave birth to it) is to break up 
s so far as will do it, the settlements on the western 
waters, prevent any in future, and thereby keep the 
States southward as they now are — or if settlements 
will take place, that they shall be on such principles 
as to make it the interest of the people to separate 
10 from the Confederacy, so as effectually to exclude 
any new State from it. To throw the weight of pop- 
ulation eastward & keep it there, to appreciate the 
vacand (sic) lands of New York and Massachusetts.^ 
In short, it is a system of policy which has for its 
IS object the keeping the weight of the government & 
population in this quarter, & is proposed by a set 
of men so flagitious, unprincipled & determined in 
their pursuits, as to satisfy me beyond a doubt they 
have extended their views to the dismemberment of 
20 the govt & resolved either, that sooner than fail 
it shall be the case, or being only desirous of that 
event have adopted this as the necessary means 
of effecting it. In conversations at which I have 
been present, the Eastern people talk of a dis- 
ss rnemberment so as to include Pena. 

Be assur'd as to all the subjects upon which I have 

given you information above, it hath been foundecj 

1 Compare document 1 1 below, 

?o8 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

on authentic documents. I trust these intrigues are 
confined to a few only, but by these men I am as- 
sured are not ; whatever anxiet}^ they may give you 
I am persuaded it cannot be greater than that which 
5 I have felt. J. M. 

2. Debates and Other Proceedings of the Convention 
of Virginia, by David Robertson. [Speech of 
William Grayson, June 13, 1788.] 
Page 243. 

10 ... The southern states thought that the navi- 
gation of the Mississippi should not be trusted to 
any hands, but those in which the confederation had 
placed the right of making treaties. That system 
required the consent of nine states for that purpose. 

IS The Secretary for Foreign Affairs was empowered 
to adjust the interfering claims of Spain and the 
United States, with the Spanish Minister, but as 
my honorable friend said, [Mr. Monroe] with an 
express prohibition of entering into any negotiation 

20 that would lead to the surrender of that river. 
Affairs continued in this state for some time. At 
length a proposition was made to congress, not 
directly, but by a side wind. The first proposal was, 
to take off the fetters of the Secretary. When the 

25 whole came out, it was found to be a proposal 
to cede the Mississippi to Spain for 25 or 30 
years, (for it was in the disjunctive) in considera- 
tion of certain commercial stipulations. In sup- 
port of this proposal, it was urged, that the right 

299 



Source Problems in United States History 

was in him who surrendered, and that their accept- 
ance of a temporary reHnquishment, was an ac- 
knowledgment of our right, which would revert to 
us at the expiration of that period; — that we could 

5 not take it by war; that the thing was useless to 
us, and that it would be wise and politic to give it 
up, as we were to receive a beneficial compensation 
for that temporary cession. Congress, after a great 
deal of animosity, came to a resolution, which, in 

lo my opinion, violated the confederation. It was 
resolved by seven states, that the prohibition in the 
secretary's instructions should be repealed; whereby 
the unrepealed part of his instructions authorised 
him to make a treaty, yielding that inestimable 

IS navigation, although by the confederation, nine 
states were necessary to concur in the formation of 
a treaty ! 

3. Debates and Other Proceedings y etc. [Speech of 
James Madison, June 12, 1788.] 

20 Page 223. 

... In the time of our greatest distresses, and 
particularly when the southern states were the 
scene of war, the southern states cast their eyes 
around to be relieved from their misfortunes. It 

25 was supposed that assistance might be obtained for 
the relinquishment of that navigation. It was 
thought that for so substantial a consideration, 
Spain might be induced to afford decisive succour. 
It was opposed by the northern and eastern states. 

300 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

They were sensible that it might be dangerous to 
surrender this important right, particularly to the 
inhabitants of the western country. But so it was, 
that the southern states were for it, and the eastern 

5 states opposed it. 
4. Debates and Other Proceedings, etc. [Speech of 
William Grayson, June 13, 1788.] 
Pages 244-245. 
... It has been urged, by my honorable friend 

10 on the other side, {Mr. Madison) that the eastern 
states were averse to surrender it during the war, 
and that the southern states proposed it themselves, 
and wished to yield it. My honorable friend last up 
has well accounted for this disgraceful offer, and I 

IS will account for the refusal of the eastern states to 
surrender it. 

Mr. Chairman, it is no new thing to you to dis- 
cover these reasons. It is well known, that the 
Newfoundland fisheries and the Mississippi are 

20 balances for one another; — that the possession of 
one tends to the preservation of the other. This 
accounts for the eastern policy. They thought that, 
if the Mississippi was given up, the southern states 
would give up the right of the fishery, on which their 

25 very existence depends. It is not extraordinary 
therefore, while these great rights of the fishery de- 
pend on such a variety of circumstances, the issue of 
war, the success of negotiations, and numerous other 
causes, that they should wish to preserve this great 

301 



Source Problems in United States History 

counterbalance. — What has been their conduct since 
the peace? When reheved from the apprehensions 
of losing that great advantage, they became solici- 
tous of securing a superiority of influence in the 
5 national councils. They looked at the true interest 
of nations. — Their language has been, — 'Let us pre- 
vent any new states from rising in the western world, 
or they will outvote us — we shall lose our importance, 
and become as nothing in the scale of nations. If we 

lo do not prevent it, otir countrymen will remove to those 
places, instead of going to sea, and we shall receive 
no particular tribute or advantage from them.' 
5. Debates and Other Proceedings, etc. [Speech of 
James Madison, June 13, 1788.] 

15 Pages 246-247. 

. . . From the best information, it never was the 
sense of the people at large, or the prevailing char- 
acters of the eastern states, to approve of the meas- 
ure. If interest, sir, should continue to operate 

20 on them, I humbly conceive that they will derive 
more advantage from holding the Mississippi, than 
even the southern states, For, if the carrying busi- 
ness be their natural province, how can it be so 
much extended and advanced as by 'giving encour- 

25 agement to agriculture in the western country, and 
having the emolument of carrying their produce to 
market? The carrying trade must depend on agri- 
culture for its support in a great measure. In what 
place is agriculture so capable of improvement and 

302 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

great extension, as in the western country? But 
whatever considerations may prevail in that quarter, 
or any other, respecting their interest, I think we 
may fairly suppose that the consideration which the 

s honorable member mentioned, and which has been 
repeated, I mean the emigrations which are going 
on to the westward, must produce the same effect 
as to them, which it may i^roduce with respect to 
us. Emigrations are now going on from that quar- 

lo tcr, as well as from this state. ... I do not conceive, 
however, that there is that extreme aversion, in the 
minds of the people of the eastern states, to emi- 
grate to the westward, which was insinuated by my 
honorable friend. Particular citizens, it cannot be 

IS doubted, may be averse to it. But it is the sense of 
the people at large, which will direct the public meas- 
ures. We find, from late arrangements made be- 
tween Massachusetts and New- York, that a very 
considerable country to the westward of New- York, 

20 was disposed of to Massachusetts, and by Massa- 
chusetts to some individuals, to conduct emigrants 
to that country. 

There were seven states who thought it right to 
give up the navigation of the Mississippi for 25 

25 years, for several reasona which have been men- 
tioned. As far as I can recollect, it was nearly as 
my honorable friend said. But they had no idea of 
absolutely alienating it. I think one material con- 
sideration which governed them was, that there 

303 



Source Problems in United States History 

were grounds of serious negotiation between Great- 
Britain and Spain, which might bring on a coaHtion 
between those nations, which might enable them to 
bind us on different sides, permanently withhold 

5 that navigation from us, and injure us in other re- 
spects materially. The temporary cession, it was 
supposed, would fix the permanent right in our 
favor, and prevent that dangerous coalition. It is 
but justice to myself to say, that however plausible 

10 the reasons urged for its temporary cession may 
have been, they never convinced me of its utility. 
I have uniformly disapproved of it, and do now. 
6. Debates and Other Proceedings, etc. [Speech of 
William Grayson, June 13, 1788.] 

IS Pages 249-250. 

. . . With respect to the Mississippi and back-lands, 
the eastern states are willing to relinquish that 
great and essential right. For they consider the 
consequences of governing the union, as of more 

20 importance than those considerations which he men- 
tioned should induce them to favor it. 

But, says the honorable gentleman, there is a 
great difference between actually giving it up alto- 
gether, and a temporary cession. — If the right was 

25 given up for 25 years, would this country be able 
to avail herself of her right, and resume it at the 
expiration of that period? If ever the house of 
Bourbon should be at war with all Europe, then 
would be the golden opportunity of regaining it. 

304 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

Without this, wc never could wrest it from the house 
of Bourbon, the branches of which always support 
each other. If things continue as they are now, 
emigrations will continue to that country. The 
s hope that this great national right will be retained, 
will induce them to go thither. But take away 
that hope, by giving up the Mississippi for 25 
years, and the emigrations will cease. As interest 
actuates mankind, will they go thither when they 

10 know they cannot enjoy the privilege of navigating 
that river, or find a ready market for their pro- 
duce? . . . 

It was alleged, that the emigrations from the 
eastern states will have the same effect as emigra- 

15 tions from this country. I know every step will be 
taken to prevent emigrations from thence, as it 
will be transferring their population to the southern 
states. — They will coincide in no measure that will 
tend to increase the weight or influence of the 

20 southern states. — There is, therefore, a wide line 
of distinction between migrations from thence and 
from hence. . . . 

But, says he, Massachusetts is willing to 
protect emigrations. — When the act of Congress 

25 passed, respecting the settlement of the western 
country, and establishing a state there, it passed 
in a lucky moment. — I was told that that state was 
extremely uneasy about it, and that in order to 
retain her inhabitants, lands, in the province of 

305 



Source Problems in United States History 

Maine, were lowered to the price of one dollar per 
acre. As to the tract of country conveyed by New- 
York to Massachusetts, neither of them had a right 
to it. — Perhaps that great line of policy of keep- 

s ing the population on that side of the continent, in 
contradistinction to the emigrations to the west- 
ward of us, actuated Massachusetts in that trans- 
action. There is no communication between that 
country and the Mississippi. The two great north- 

10 ern communications are by the North River, and 
by the river St. Lawrence, to the Mississippi. But 
there is no communication between that country 
where the people of Massachusetts emigrate, and 
the Mississippi; nor do I believe that there will be 

15 one traveller from it thither. 

7. Debates and Proceedings, etc. [Speech of Mr. 
Grayson, June 12, 1788.] 
Page 210. 
. . . With respect to the citizens of the eastern and 

20 some of the middle states, perhaps the best and 
surest means of discovering their general disposi- 
tions, may be by having recourse to their interests. 
This seems to be the pole star to which the policy 
of nations is directed. If this supposition should be 

25 founded, I think they must have reasons of con- 
siderable magnitude for wishing the occlusion of 
that river. If the Mississippi was yielded to Spain, 
the migration to the western country would be 
stopped, and the Northern States WQuld, not only 

306 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

retain their inhabitants, but preserve their superi- 
ority and influence over that of the southern. If 
matters go on in their present direction, there will 
be a number of new states to the westward — popu- 
s lation may become greater m the southern scale — 
the ten miles square may approach us! This they 
must naturally wish to prevent. 

8. Debates and Proceedings, etc. [Speech of James 

Monroe, June 13, 1788.] 
10 Pages 242-243. 

. . . Mr. Monroe added several other observations 
the purport of which was 

. . . That the northern states were inclined to yield 
it [the Mississippi]: That it was their interest to 
IS prevent an augmentation of the southern influence 
and power; and that, as mankind in general, and 
states in particular, were governed by interest, the 
northern states would not fail of availing themselves 
of the opportunity given them by the constitution, 
20 of relinquishing that river, in order to depress the 
western country, and prevent the southern interest 
from preponderating. 

9. Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 

ist vSession, Senate, Vol. VI, pt. i. [vSpeech of 
25 Senator Benton of Missouri, February 2, 1830.] 

Pages 98-99. 

. . . From this instant [Jay treaty of 1786], the 
division between the North and South, on the sub- 
ject of the West, sprung into existence. A series 

307 



Source Problems in United States History 

of motions and votes ensued, and a struggle which 
continued two years, in which Maryland, and all 
South, voted one way, and New Jersey, and all 
North voted the other. The most important of 
5 these motions were, i. A motion by Mr. King, of 
New York, to repeal the clause in the instructions 
to Mr. Jay which made the navigation of the Mis- 
sissippi a sine qua non, which was carried by the seven 
Northern States against the others. 2. A motion 

10 by Mr. Pinckney, of S. Carolina, to revoke the 
whole instruction, and stop the negotiation: lost by 
the same vote. 3. A motion by Mr. Pinckney, 
seconded by Mr. Monroe, to declare it a violation 
of the Articles of Confederation, for seven States 

IS to alter the instructions for negotiating a treaty, 
those articles requiring the consent of nine States on 
questions of that kind ; lost by the same vote. 4. A 
motion by the delegates from Virginia to make it 
a sine qua non that the citizens of the United States 

20 should have the privilege of taking their produce 
to New Orleans; the United States to have a con- 
sul, and citizens factors there; that the vessels be 
allowed to return empty, and the produce to be 
exported on paying a small export duty : lost by the 

25 same array of votes. 5. A motion made by Mr. St. 
Clair, seconded by Mr. King, to make the same 
proposition, to be obtained, if possible, but not a 
sine qua non; carried by the ayes of New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, seven, against 
the noes of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, 
South Carolina, Georgia, five; Delaware not present 
... in September, 1788, [Mr. Madison] offered 
5 a resolution that no further progress be made 
in the negotiation with Spain, and that the whole 
subject be referred to the new Federal Government, 
which was to go into operation the ensuing year. 
This resolution was agreed to, and the Mississippi 

10 saved. Thus ended an arduous and eventful strug- 
gle. The termination was fortunate and happy, but 
the spirit which produced it has never gone to 
sleep. The idea that the Western rivers are a fund 
for the purchase of Atlantic advantages, in treaties 

15 with foreign Powers, has been acted upon often 
since. The Mississippi, the Arkansas, the Red River, 
the Sabine, and the Columbia, can bear witness of 
this. The idea that the growth of the West was 
incompatible with the supremacy of the Northeast, 

20 has since crept into the legislation of the Federal 
Government, as will be fully developed in the course 
of this debate. 

10. Register of Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Sena- 
tor Holmes of Maine, January 19, 1830.] 

25 Pages 28-29. 

. . . The Senator [Mr. B] has read from the debates 
of the Virginia convention, to prove that the East 
were disposed to give to Spain our right of navigation 
of the Mississippi. It seems that this alienation came 

309 



Source Problems in United States History 

incidentally into discussion, and it was apprehended 
that, under the constitution which was to be adopted, 
the new Government would have more power to 
do this than would the old confederation. A Mr. 

5 Grayson had stated that this was the disposition of 
the East, and chiefly inferred it from the supposed 
fact that we had no interest in that navigation. If 
this Mr. Grayson was an able statesman, he had not 
then learnt much of geography; for he stated that 

lo Massachusetts had no intercourse with the Missis- 
sippi but by the St. Lawrence, or the Hudson ! When 
the fact is, that Massachusetts for half a century, 
has had more intimate intercourse with the Missis- 
sippi than even the State of Maryland. A man who 

15 could deliberately advance such an opinion, can 
scarcely be considered very high authority on any 
subject. Mr. Madison, howeyer, a real statesman, 
put it all right, showed the connection of the East 
with the West, and denied that the Eastern people 

20 ever would be willing to make the concession. 

II. History of the Formation of the Constitution of the 
United States of America, by George Bancroft, 
Vol. I, Appendix. [William Grayson to 
George Washington, April 15, 1785.] 

25 Page 427. 

. . . Some gentlemen looked upon it [distribution 
of the public lands] as a matter of revenue only, and 
that it was true policy to get the money without 
parting with inhalDitants to populate the country, 

310 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

and thereby prevent the lands in the original states 
from depreciating.^ Others (I think) were afraid of 
an interference with the lands now at market in the 
individual States. Part of the eastern gentlemen 
s wish to have the lands sold in such a manner as to 
suit their own people who may choose to emigrate, 
of which I believe there will be great numbers, par- 
ticularly from Connecticut. But others are appre- 
hensive of the consequences which may result from 

10 the new states taking their position in the confed- 
eracy. They, perhaps, wish that this event may be 
delayed as long as possible. 

12. History of the Formation of the Constitution, etc. 
[Washington to Grayson, April 25, 1785.] 

15 Pages 431-432. 

. . . These are the first thoughts, perhaps incon- 
gruous ones, and such as I myself might reprobate 
upon more mature consideration. At present, how- 
ever, I, am impressed with them, and (under the 

20 rose) a penetrating eye and close observation will 
discover, through various disguises, a disinclination 
to add new states to the confederation westward of 
us; which must be the inevitable consequence of 
emigration to, and the population of, that territory. 

25 And as to restraining the citizens of the Atlantic 
states from transplanting themselves to that soil, 
when prompted thereto by interest or inclination — 
you might as well attempt, while our governments 

^Compare document i, the P. S. of Monroe's letter to Henry. 

311 



Source Problems in United States History 



^ 



are free, to prevent the reflux of the tide when you 
had got it into your rivers. 

13. Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 
ist Session, Senate, Vol. VI, pt. i. [Speech 

s of Senator Benton, January 18 and February 

2, 1830.] 
Pages 25-26. 

. . . The ordinance [Grayson land ordinance, 
April 14, 1785] reported by the committee^ con- 

10 tained the plan of surveying the public lands, which 
has since been followed. It adopted the scientific 
principle of ranges of townships, which has been con- 
tinued ever since, and found so beneficial in a vari- 
ety of ways to the country. The ranges began on 

IS the Pennsylvania line, and proceeded West to the 
Mississippi, and since the acquisition of Louisiana, 
they have proceeded west of that river. The town- 
ships began upon the Ohio river, and proceeded north 
to the Lakes. The townships were divided into 

20 sections [thirty-six] of a mile square, six hundred and 
forty acres each, and the minimum price was fixed 
at one dollar per acre, and not less than a section to 
be sold together. 

Page 99 [February 2, 1830]. 

25 ... The ordinance of the same epoch, for the sale 
of the Western lands, has also been celebrated, and 

^The committee was composed of: Long (N. H.), King (Mass.), 
Howell (R. I.), Johnson (Conn.), R. R. Livingstone (N.Y.), Stewart 
(N. J.), Gardner (Pa.), J. Henry (Md.), Grayson (Va.), (William- 
30 son (N. C.), Bull (S. C.), Houston (Ga.). 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

deservedly, for the beauty and science of its system 
of surveys. The honor of this ordinance is also as- 
sumed for the Northeast. Let it be so. I know noth- 
ing to the contrary, and what I do know favors that 
5 idea. The ordinance came from a committee of 
twelve, of whom eight were ft om the north, four from 
the south side of the Potomac. But, as it came from 
that committee, it would have left the whole North- 
western region a haunt for wild beasts and savages. 

10 The clause which required that every previous town- 
ship should be sold out complete, before a subse- 
quent one was offered for sale, would have produced 
this result, and was intended to produce it. 
Pages 25-26 [January 18, 1830]. . 

15 ... This was tantamount to a law that land should 
not be sold ; that the country should not be settled : 
for it is certain that every township, or almost every 
one, would contain land unfit for cultivation, and 
for which no person would give six hundred and 

20 forty dollars for six hundred and forty acres. . . . 
It was a wicked and preposterous provision. It re- 
quired the people to take the country clean before 
them; buy all as they went; mountains, hills, and 
swamps; rocks, glens, and prairies. They were to 

25 make clean work, as the giant Polyphemus did when 
he ate up the companions of Ulysses: . . . 

When this ordinance was put upon its passage 
in Congress, two Virginians, whose names, for that 
act alone, would deserve the lasting gratitude of the 

313 



Source Problems in United States History 

West, levelled their blows against the obnoxious 
provision. Mr. Grayson moved to strike it out, and 
Mr. Monroe seconded him; and, after an animated 
and arduous contest, they succeeded. The whole 

s South supported them; not one recreant arm from 
the South ; many scattering members from the North 
also voted with the South, and in favor of the in- 
fant West; proving then, as now, and as it always 
has been, that the West has true supporters of her 

10 rights and interests — unhappily not enough of them 
— in that quarter of the Union from which the 
measures have originated that several times threat- 
ened to be fatal to her. 

Page 99 [February 2, 1830]. 

15 ... Massachusetts,^ and some others contended 
for it [viz., the ordinance as originally reported] 
to the last. The Northwest is therefore indebted 
to the South for the sale of its lands: it is also in- 
debted to it for an unsuccessful attempt to promote 

20 the settlement of the country by reducing the size 
of the tracts to be sold. The ordinance, as reported, 
fixed six hundred and forty acres as the smallest 
division that might be offered for sale. Mr. Gray- 
son, of Virginia, seconded by Mr. Monroe, moved 

25 to reduce the quantity to three hundred and twenty 
acres, but failed in the attempt. The Virginia 
Delegation voted for it unanimously ; South Carolina 

^ Compare document 40 below, giving Webster's general view of 
the relation of New England to the West. 

314 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

and Georgia, both voted for it, but, having but 
one member present, the vote did not count. 
Maryland voted for it: all the rest of the States 
against it. 

s 14. Register of Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Sena- 
tor Holmes of Maine, January 19, 1830.] 
Page 28. 

. . . But because it was proposed, by eastern mem- 
bers of the old Congress, to provide, in the ordinance 

10 of '87 [sic, in fact '85] that every section in one town- 
ship should be sold, before another should be offered 
for sale, (which proposition did not prevail) the 
Senator infers that this is evidence of hostility. 
Now it seems to me that this inference is, to say 

15 the least, a little uncharitable. I could easily per- 
ceive that a very patriotic and charitable motive 
might have induced this proposition. At that time 
the settlers would be opposed to numerous and 
powerful savage tribes. They would be obliged in 

20 some measure to defend themselves. It would be 
safest, therefore, to keep them as compact as pos- 
sible: for the more they should scatter, the more 
they would be exposed. The members from the 
East had near and dear friends, who had emigrated 

25 to that country, and it might be their motive to pro- 
tect them. When a good and bad motive may be 
assigned to an act, it is the part of charity to assign 
the good, especially when the person implicated is 
dead, and cannot therefore defend his rnotives, 

315 



Source Problems in United States History 

15. The Records of the Federal Convention of lySy. 
Edited by Max Farrand. Vol. I. [Speech by 
Gouverneur Morris, of New York, July 5, 
1787.] 

5 Pages 533-534. 

. . . He [Mr. Morris] thought property ought to 
be taken into the estimate as well as the number of 
inhabitants. Life and liberty were generally said 
to be of more value, than property. An accurate 

10 view of the matter would nevertheless prove that 
property was the main object of Society. The 
savage State was more favorable to liberty than the 
Civilized; and sufficiently so to life. It was pre- 
ferred by all men who had not acquired a taste for 

IS property; it was only renounced for the sake of 
property which could only be secured by the re- 
straints of regular Government. These ideas might 
appear to some new, but they were nevertheless 
just. If property then was the main object of Govt. 

20 certainly it ought to be one measure of the influence 
due to those who were to be affected by the Gov- 
ernmt. He looked forward also to that range of 
New States which wd. soon be formed in the west. 
He thought the rule of representation ought to be so 

25 fixed as to secure to the Atlantic States a prevalence 
in the National Councils. The new States will know 
less of the public interest than these, will have an 
interest in many respects different, in particular will 
be little scrupulous of involving the Community in 

316 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

wars the burdens & operations of which would fall 
chiefly on the maritime States. Provision ought 
therefore be made to prevent the maritime States 
from being hereafter outvoted by them. He thought 

5 this might be easily done by irrevocably fixing the 
number of representatives which the Atlantic States 
should respectively have, and the number which each 
new State will have. This wd. not be unjust, as the 
western settlers wd. previously know the conditions 

10 on which they were to possess their lands. It would 
be politic as it would recommend the plan to the 
present as well as future interest of the States which 
must decide the fate of it. 
1 6. The Records of the Federal Convention, etc., Vol. 

15 I. [Speech of George Mason, of Virginia, 

July II, 1787.] 
Pages 578-579. 

. . . [Mr. Mason said] Strong objections had been 
drawn from the danger to the Atlantic interests 

20 from new Western States. Ought we to sacrifice 
what we know to be right in itself, lest it should 
prove favorable to States which are not yet in 
existence. If the Western States are to be admitted 
into the Union as they arise, they must, he wd. re- 

25 peat, be treated as equals, and subjected to no de- 
grading discriminations. They will have the same 
pride & other passions which we have, and will either 
not unite with or will speedily revolt from the 
Union, if they are not in all respects placed on an 

317 



Source Problems in United States History 

equal footing with their brethren. It has been 
said they will be poor, and unable to make equal 
contributions to the general Treasury. He did not 
know but that in time they would be both more 
5 numerous & more wealthy than their Atlantic 
bretliren.^ The extent & fertility of their soil, made 
this probable; and though Spain might for a time 
deprive them of the natural outlet for their pro- 
ductions, yet she will, because she must, finally 

10 yield to their demands. He urged that numbers of 
inhabitants, though not always a precise standard 
of wealth was sufficiently so for every substantial 
purpose. 
17. The Records of the Federal Convention, etc., 

IS Vol. I. [Speech of Gouverneur Morris, July 

II, 1787-] 
Page 583. 

. . . The remarks of (Mr. Mason) relative to the 
Western Country had not changed his opinion on 
20 that head. Among other objections it must be 
apparent they would not be able to furnish men 
equally enlightened, to share in the administration 
of our common interests. The Busy haunts of men 
not the remote wilderness, was the proper School 
25 of political Talents. If the Western people^ get the 
power into their hands they will ruin the Atlantic 
interests. The Back members are always most 

^ Crossed out, * tho' perhaps not before they might choose to 
become a separate people.' 

318 . / 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

averse to the best measures. He mentioned the 
case of Pena. formerly. The lower part of the 
State had ye. flower in the first instance. They 
kept it in yr. own hands. & the country was ye. 
5 better for it. 
i8. The Records of the Federal Convention, etc.. Vol. 
I. [vSpeech of Gouverneur Morris, July 13, 
1787.1 
Pages 604-605. 

10 ... The train of business & the late turn which it 
had taken, had led him he said, into deep meditation 
on it, and He wd. candidly state the result. A dis- 
tinction had been set up & urged, between the Nn. 
& Southii. States. He had hitherto considered this 

IS doctrine as heretical. He still thought the dis- 
tinction groundless. He sees however that it is 
I)ersisted in; and that the Southn. Gentleman will 
not be satisfied unless they see the way open to 
their gaining a majority in the public Councils. 

20 The consequence of such a transfer of power from 
the maritime to the interior & landed interest will 
he foresees be such an oppression of commerce, that 
he shall be obliged to vote for ye. vicious principle 
of equality in the 2d. branch in order to provide 

25 some defence for the N. States agvSt. it. But to 
come now more to the point, either this distinction 
is fictitious or real : if fictitious let it be dismissed & 
let us proceed with due confidence. If it be real, 
instead of attempting to blend incompatible things, 

319 



Source Problems in United States History 

let us at once take a friendly leave of each other. 
There can be no end of demands for security if every 
particular interest is to be entitled to it. The East- 
em States may claim it for their fishery, and for 

5 other objects, as the Southn. States claim it for their 
peculiar objects. In this struggle between the two 
ends of the Union, what part ought the Middle 
States in point of policy to take: to join their East- 
em brethren according to his ideas. If the Southn. 

10 States get the power into their hands, and be joined 
as they will be with the interior Country they will 
inevitably bring on a war with Spain for the Mis- 
sissippi. This language is already held. The in- 
terior Country having no property nor interest ex- 

15 posed on the sea, will be Httle affected by such a 
war. He wished to know what securicy the Northn. 
& middle States will have agst. this danger. It has 
been said the N.C.S.C. and Georgia only will in a 
little time have a majority of the people of America. 

20 They must in that case include the great interior 

Country, and every thing was to be apprehended 

from their getting the power into their hands. 

19. The Records of the Federal Convention, etc., Vol. 

II. [Speech of Mr. Gerry, of Massachusetts, 

25 July 14, 1787.] 

Pages 2-3. 

Mr. Gerry, wished before the question should be 
put, that the attention of the House might be turned 
to the dangers apprehended from Western States. 

320 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

He was for admitting them on liberal terms, but not 
for putting ourselves into their hands. They will if 
they acquire power like all men, abuse it. Th(e)y 
will oppress commerce, and drain our wealth into 

5 the Western Country. To guard agst. these con- 
sequences, he thought it necessary to limit the num- 
ber of new States to be admitted into the Union, in 
such a manner, that they should never be able to 
outnumber the Atlantic States. He accordingly 

10 moved 'that in order to secure the < liberties of the> 
States already confederated, the < number of > Rep- 
resentatives in the ist. branch <of the States which 
shall hereafter be established > shall never exceed 
in number, the Representatives from such of the 

IS States <as shall accede to this confederation.>'^ 
Mr. King, seconded the motion. 
Mr. Sherman, thought there was no probability 
that the number of future States would exceed that 
of the Existing States. If the event should ever 

20 happen, it was too remote to be taken into considera- 
tion at this time. Besides We are providing for 
our posterity, for our children & our grand Chil- 
dren, who would be as likely to be citizens of new 
Western States, as of the old States. On this con- 

25 sideration alone, we ought to make no such dis- 
crimination as was proposed by the motion. 

Mr. Gerry. If some of our children should re- 
move, others will stay behind, and he thought it 

^ Revised from Journal. 
321 



Source Problems in United States History 

incumbent on us to provide for their interests. 
There was a rage for emigration from the Eastern 
States to the Western Country and he did not wish 
those remaining behind to be at the mercy of the 

5 Emigrants. Besides foreigners are resorting to that 

Country, and it is uncertain what turn things may 

take there. — On the question for agreeing to the 

Motion of Mr. Gerry, <it passed in the negative. > 

Mas. ay. Cont. ay. N.J. no Pa. divd. Del: Ay. 

lo Md.ay.Va. no. N.C. no. S.C. no. Geo. no. [Ayes-4; 
noes-5 ; divided-i .] 

20. The Records of the Federal Convention, etc., Vol. 

III. [Letter of Gouverneur Morris to Henry 
W. Livingstone, December 4, 1S03.] 
15 Page 404. 

... I always thought that, when we should acquire 
Canada and Louisiana it would be proper to govern 
them as provinces, and allow them no voice in our 
councils. In wording the third section of the fourth 
20 article, I went as far as circumstances would per- 
mit to establish the exclusion. Candor obliges me 
to add my belief, that, had it been more pointedly ex- 
pressed, a strong opposition would have been made. 

21. Documents relating to New-England Federalism. 
25 [Timothy Pickering to Rufus King, March 

4, 1804.] 
Page 352. 

. . . And, if a separation should be deemed proper, 
the five New England States, New York, and New 

322 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

Jersey would naturally he united. Amonj^ those 
seven States, there is sufficient congeniality of char- 
acter to authorize the expectation of practicable 
harmony and a permanent union, New York the 

s centre. Without a separation, can those vStates 
ever rid themselves of negro Presidents and negro 
Congresses, and regain their just weight in the 
political balance? At this moment, the slaves of 
the Middle and vSouthem vStates have fifteen repre- 

10 sentatives in Congress, and they will SLppcAnt that 
number of electors of the next President and Vice- 
President; and the numV^er of slaves is continually 
increasing. You notice this evil. But will the slave 
vStates ever renounce the advantage? As popula- 

15 tion is in fact no rule of taxation, the negro repre- 
sentation ought to be given up. If refused, it would 
be a strong ground for separation, though perhaps 
an earlier occasion may present to declare it. How 
many Indian wars, excited by the avidity of the 

20 Western and Southern States for Indian lands, shall 
we have to encounter, and who will j)ay the millions 
to vSupport them? The Atlantic States. Yet the 
first moment we ourselves need assistance, and call 
on the Western States for taxes, they will declare 

25 off, or at any rate refuse to obey the call. Kentucky 
effectually resisted the collection of the excise; and 
of the thirty-seven thousand dollars' direct tax 
assessed upon her so many years ago, she has paid 
only four thousand dollars, and probably will never 
22 323 



Source Problems in United States History 

pay the residue. In the mean time, we are main- 
taining their representatives in Congress for govern- 
ing us, who surely can much better govern ourselves. 
Whenever the Western States detach themselves, 

5 they will take Louisiana with them. In thirty years 
the white population on the Western Waters will 
equal that of the thirteen States when they declared 
themselves independent of Great Britain. On the 
census of 1790, Kentucky was entitled to two rep- 

10 resentatives ; under that of 1800, she sends six! . . . 

22. Writings of John Quincy Adams, edited by 

W. C. Ford, Vol. IV. [Letter of John Quincy 

Adams to Dr. Benjamin Waterhouse, October 

24, 1813.] 

IS Pages 526-527. 

... I am not displeased to hear that Ohio, Ken- 
tucky, Indiana and Louisiana are rapidly peopling 
with Yankees. I consider them as an excellent race 
of people, and as far as I am able to judge I believe 

20 that their moral and political character, far from 
degenerating improves by emigration. I have al- 
ways felt on that account a sort of predilection for 
those rising western states; and have seen with no 
small astonishment the prejudices harbored against 

25 them by the New England junto-federalists. There 
is not upon this globe of earth a spectacle exhib- 
ited by man so interesting to my mind or so 
consolatory to my heart as this metamorphosis of 
howling deserts into cultivated fields and populous 

324 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

villages which is yearly, daily, hourly, going on by 
the hands chiefi}^ of New England men in our west- 
em states and territories. If New England loses 
her influence in the councils of the Union it will not 

5 be owing to any diminution of her population oc- 
casioned by these emigrations; it will be from the 
partial, sectarian, or, as Hamilton called it clannish 
spirit which makes so many of her political leaders 
jealous and envious of the west and south. This 

10 spirit is in its nature narrow and contracted, and it 
always works by means like itself. Its natural ten- 
dency is to excite and provoke a counteracting spirit 
of the same character, and it has actually produced 
that effect in our country. It has combined thd 

IS southern and western parts of the United States, 
not in a league but in a concert of political views 
adverse to those of New England. The fame of all 
the great legislators of antiquity is founded upon 
their contrivances to strengthen and multiply the 

20 principles of attraction in civil society. Our legis- 
lators seem to delight in multiplying and fomenting 
the principles of repulsion. 

23. Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 
ist Session (Senate), Vol. VI, pt. i. [Speech 

25 of Senator Benton, February 2, 1830.] 

Page 97. 

. . . Having read this letter of Mr. Adams, Mr. B. 
continued. I will make no comment on the language 
here used. It is sufficiently significant without that 

325 



Source Problems in United States History 

trouble. ' Partial-sectarian-clannish- jealous-envious- 
narrow - contracted - excite - provoke - multiplying, fo- 
menting, principles of repulsion ' — are phrases which 
need no aid from the dictionary to uncover their 
s pregnant meaning. I will only ask for three or four 
concessions : 

1. That the authority of the writer of the letter 
is canonical, and binding on the church. 

2. That it goes the full length in charging the 
10 New England leaders of 1813, with opposition to 

Western emigration. 

3. That nothing which I have said of the motives, 
or conduct, of those who oppose this emigration, 
can compare in severity of expression with the lan- 

15 guage of Mr. Adams. 

4. That the political leaders of whom he spoke 
as opposing emigration of the West, upon such mo- 
tives, and by such means, are the same who are 
now denying it on this floor, and wooing the West 

20 into an alliance with them. 

24. American State Papers, etc., Public Lands, Vol. 
IV, No. 448. [Application of Illinois for a 
Reduction in the Price of Certain Lands, 
February 3, 1825.] 
25 Page 148. 

To the honorable the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives of the United States in Congress assembled: 
The memorial of the people of the State of Illinois, 
represented in the general assembly, respectfully 

326 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

shows: That your memorialists, believing that the 
existing laws relating to public lands are unequal 
in their operation, and injurious in their tendency 
both to the national interest and the welfare of 
s large portions of the western country, beg leave 
to submit the following observations: The present 
price [viz., $1.25 per acre] of public lands, so far 
as it relates to those districts of country which have 
been recently offered for sale, affords no ground of 
10 complaint, but your memorialists believe that a 
distinction ought to be made between land thus 
situated and such as has been longer in market. 
In the latter case the most choice selections having 
been made by the bidders at public sale, by non- 
15 residents who have purchased on speculation, or 
by early settlers, the land remaining is either of 
inferior quality, or subject to some local disadvan- 
tages, and it would seem reasonable that its price 
should be reduced in proportion to its actual value. 
20 The value of such land will naturally be ascertained 
by comparing its quality with that of the adjacent 
tracts, and the purchaser would reluctantly pay for 
it the same price which has been given for superior 
soil and better situations. The natural consequence 
25 of such a state of things is, that the emigrant is 
driven to new and distant settlements where few 
have preceded him, and where the inconvenience 
of which we complain does not operate upon his 
choice. The tide of population is thus diverted into 

327 



Source Problems in United States History 

a thousand channels, and suffered to roll over im- 
mense regions, creating feeble and thinly scattered 
settlements, and leaving extensive tracts of wilderness 
behind. Under a government like ours, cemented 
s only by the mutual affection of the people, it is to 
be doubted whether a policy should be pursued which, 
by diffusing the population, weakens the political 
strength of the national and State confederacies, 
and loosens the ties which should bind the people 

lo together. In a scattered population public institu- 
tions are seldom established; systems of education 
cannot be matured; moral restraints are tardily en- 
forced; laws are feebly executed; and revenue 
raised with difficulty. 

IS 25. Register of Debates, etc., 21st Congress, ist Ses- 
sion (Senate), Vol. VI, pt. i. [Speech of Sen- 
ator Hayne of South Carolina, January 19, 
1830.] 
Page 32. 

20 ... There may be said to be two great parties in 
this country, who entertain very opposite opinions 
in relation to the character of the policy which the 
Government has heretofore pursued, in relation to 
the public lands, as well as to that which ought, 

25 hereafter, to be pursued. I propose, very briefly, 
to examine these opinions, and to throw out for con- 
sideration a few ideas in connexion with them. 
Adverting first, to the past policy of the Govern- 
ment, we find that one party, embracing a very large 

328 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

portion, perhaps at this time a majority of the people 
of the United States, in all quarters of the Union, 
entertain the opinion, that, in the settlement of 
the new States and the disposition of the public 
5 lands, Congress has pursued not only a highly just 
and liberal course, but one of extraordinary kind- 
ness and indulgence. We are regarded as having 
acted towards the new States in the spirit of parental 
weakness, granting to fro ward children, not only 

10 every thing that was reasonable and proper, but 
actually robbing ourselves of our property to gratify 
their insatiable desires. While the other party, em- 
bracing the entire West, insist that we have treated 
them, from the beginning, not like heirs of the 

IS estate, but in the spirit of a hard task-master, re- 
solved to promote our selfish interests from the fruit 
of their labor. ... In the creation and settlement of 
the new States, the plan has been invariably pur- 
sued, of selling out, from time to time, certain por- 

20 tions of the public lands, for the highest price that 
could possibly be obtained for them in open market, 
and, until a few years past [1820] on long credits. 
In this respect, a marked difference is observable 
between our policy and that of every other nation 

25 that has ever attempted to establish colonies or 
create new States. . . . Lands, which had been for 
fifty or a hundred years open to every settler, with- 
out any charge beyond the expense of the survey, 
were, the moment they fell into the hands of the 

329 



Source Problems in United States History 

United States, held up for sale at the highest price 
that a public auction, at the most favorable seasons, 
and not unfrequently a spirit of the wildest com- 
petition, could produce, with a limitation that they 
s should never be sold below a certain minimum price ; 
thus making it, as it would seem, the cardinal point 
of our policy, not to settle the country, and facilitate 
the formation of new States, but to fill our coffers 
by coining our lands into gold.^ 
10 26. Register of Debates in Congress, 23d Congress, 
ist Session, Vol. X, pt. iv. Appendix. [Re- 
port from the Committee on Public Lands, 
House of Representatives, December 27, 1833.] 
Pages 214-215. 
IS ... If, however, the subject be considered in refer- 
ence to the financial interest of the General Govern- 
ment alone, it is believed that the price of the public 
lands should be reduced, after having been first 
offered at public sale, and then remaining a reason- 
20 able time subject to private entry, at the present 
minimum. The Government of the United States 

^ Senator Benton summarized briefly the main arguments of Clay- 
in opposition to the reduction of the price of lands thus: " — specu- 
lators to buy up all the public lands — destruction of the present 

25 land system — splendid growth of the new States, and of Ohio in 
particular, under the influence of the present system — injury to 
former purchasers of public lands — fall in the value of all lands 
public and private — emigration from the old States — the land rev- 
enue paid by the old States — too rapid growth of the new States — 

30 cessation of all sales, under the expectation of reducing prices." 
See speech June 28, 1832, Register of Debates, etc., 22d Cong., ist 
Sess., Vol. VIII, pt. I, p. 1 148. 

3vS0 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

is probably the only vender, either of land or any 
other property, that holds the most inferior quality 
of any article at the same price with the best. If 
an individual were to maintain that all domestic 

5 animals of a given species were of the same value, 
how inconsistent would he appear! If a merchant 
were to refuse to sell kerseys at any lower price than 
he could obtain for superfine broadcloths, his conduct 
would certainly be deemed utterly absurd. Yet 

10 there is not greater absurdity in either of these posi- 
tions, than there is in maintaining that land of every 
quality is worth, or should command, the same price. 
The experience of the last ten years has demon- 
strated that lands of the greatest fertility, when 

15 sold at auction, will only command a very small 
fraction above $1.25 per acre. To prove this, it 
is only necessary to refer to official documents now 
on the files of the House. It is not probable that 
more than one-tenth of the public domain is of the 

20 first quality; yet we refuse to let the remaining 
nine-tenths go at any lower price. 

By a report (which is hereto annexed) made by 
the Secretary of the Treasury on the 2 2d January 
last, in answer to a resolution of the House, it appears 

25 that the quantity of land to which the Indian and 
foreign titles had been extinguished, was 301,965,600 
acres. Of that quantity there had, on the 31st 
December, 183 1, been offered for sale, 130,932,205 
acres; and only 26,524,450 acres had been sold. 

331 



Source Problems in United States History 

By the same report, the quantity of land subject 
to private entry, on the same day, (and which, of 
course, had been offered at public auction, and re- 
fused, at $1.25 per acre,) was 104,407,755 acres. 

s As evidence of the great inferiority of this large 
quantity of land, it is shown by the same report that 
the quantity which had been offered and refused, 
at public sale in the several States, had been in mar- 
ket, and subject to private entry, the following 

10 periods : That in Ohio had nearly all been in market 
twenty years, the greater portion from twenty-five to 
thirty years ; that in Indiana had nearly all been in 
market from fifteen to twenty years ; that in IlHnois 
had nearly all been in market for fifteen years and 

IS upwards; that in Missouri, an average of about 
twelve years; that in Alabama from twelve to 
twenty-two years, the average period may be said 
to be fifteen years; that in Mississippi from twelve 
to twenty years; that in Louisiana about thirteen 

20 years, and that in Michigan about thirteen years. 
In December, 1828, a statement compiled from 
official documents, and printed by order of the 
Senate, showed that 74,358,881 acres were then sub- 
ject to private entry, having been offered at public 

25 sale, and refused, at $1.25 per acre; and that, of 
this quantity, 28,247,000 acres (more than one- 
third) were unfit for cultivation. Taking the same 
relative proportions of the quantity now subject to 
private entry as the basis of calculation, and it fol- 

332 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

lows that we now have about 40,000,000 acres, not 
only inferior, but unfit for cultivation. Yet our 
system is based on the hypothesis that there is no 
difference in the quality or value of the public 

s lands. 

As an additional proof of the inferior quality of 
those hundred and odd millions of refuse lands, the 
fact may be stated, that it is dispersed through the 
oldest, as well as the more recently settled parts 

10 of the States and Territories. It is not in such de- 
tached bodies, and so far removed from the im- 
proved and cultivated lands, as to impede its settle- 
ment and cultivation; on the contrary, were the soil 
good, its locality would afford unusual facilities in 

15 both respects. It is wholly unreasonable to suppose 
that such land will sell for the same price at which 
land of the best quality can be purchased. But, if 
reduced to its fair relative value, much might be 
sold. Inferior lands, lying adjacent to those which 

20 are improved and cultivated, would be valuable 
appendages to them, and would be purchased by 
present land proprietors. Other portions would be 
purchased by poor men, who have been driven from 
the more fertile tracts by men of large capital, and 

25 by speculators.^ 

^Clay denied that unsold land was necessarily refuse or poor 

land. He said ** it was not sold because there were not people to 

buy it," viz., in such enormous quantities. See speech of January 

28, 1832, Register of Debates, etc., 226. Cong., ist Sess., Vol. VIII, 

30 pt. I, p. 1 147. 

333 



Source Problems in United States History 

27. Register of Debates, etc., 21st Congress, ist Ses- 

sion (House of Representatives), Vol. VI, 
pt. I. [Resolution of IMr. Hunt, of Ver- 
mont, December 17, 1829.] 
5 Page 477. 

Resolved, That the Committee on the Public Lands 
be instructed to inquire into the expediency of ap- 
propriating the nett annual proceeds of the sales of 
the public lands among the several States for the 
10 purposes of education and internal improvement, 
in proportion to the representation of each in the 
House of Representatives. 

28. Register of Debates in Congress, Ibid. [Speech 

of Mr. Pettis, of Missouri, January 14, 1830.] 

IS Pages 524-525, 530. 

. . . The people of the new States have a just ground 
of complaint, that . . . the government [has] lost sight 
of the chief object, that of settling the country, and 
looks mainly to the money that is to be made from 

20 its own citizens. ... If this (passage of Hunt's 
resolution) be done, it will be considered the inter- 
ests of the people of the old States not only to relax 
their present system, but to adopt one more onerous. 
They will force their representatives here to act as 

25 a set of heartless speculators, wringing from the poor 
cultivator of the soil the last cent of his earnings, 
It is in vain that gentlemen say to us, adopt this 
our system of distribution, and we will give you a 
liberal system of disposing of these Jands, We know 

334 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

that when the system shall have been fixed upon 
us we cannot escap)e. ... I look upon the system 
proposed to be established by this resolution, as an 
anti-emigration system — a system which is intended 
5 to check the growth of the West. Has it come to 
this, sir? We have had American systems — anti- 
slavery systems — and systems, the Lord knows what; 
and now we are to have an anti-emigration system, to 
cripple the West, and to prevent the poor of the East 
10 from going to the West, and cultivating the fertile 
lands of the West. Money is to be divided among 
them at home — they are to be educated at home, 
and, I suppose, starve at home. Do you fear the 
increased and increasing power of the West? I 
IS hope not. That power is your power; it is the 
power of the whole country, and should not be 
feared by any part. 

29. American State Papers, etc., Public Lands, 

Vol. VI, No. 915. [Application of Delaware 

20 for a General Distribution of the Proceeds 

of the Sales of the Public Lands among the 

Several States. Report of a Committee of 

the General Assembly, January session, 1831, 

communicated to the Senate March i, 183 1.] 

25 Pages 301-302. 

[Reported] 

That the citizens of this State view with deep 
solicitude the efforts lately made in the national 
legislature to deprive the Atlantic States of their 

335 



Source Problems in United States History 

just and equitable rights to the public lands of the 
Union — the right which they claim to hold in com- 
mon with all the States, and which were asserted by 
and conceded to them at the laying of the founda- 

5 tion of the Constitution of the Union. It is an in- 
heritance which they claim as the purchase of their 
treasures and of their blood, and is too highly ap- 
preciated by them to be relinquished without an 
equivalent, and too dearly bought to be wantonly 

10 lavished away. 

The citizens of Delaware have beheld, with pain 
and anxiety, attempts which have lately been made 
in Congress thus to deprive them of a conceded right, 
and dissipate the revenue derivable from those lands, 

IS by forcing sales within a short period of time, and 
at mere nominal prices. They consider such a 
scheme as nothing less than a virtual alienation of 
their right, and a w^anton sacrifice of their interest 
to the cupidity and avarice of speculators, many 

20 of whom, it would seem, are as mercenary and un- 
principled in their views as they are active and 
vociferous in their support of them. The people 
of Delaware look forward to the time when the 
national debt shall have been liquidated (to the 

2s payment of which the revenue accruing from the 
sales of the public lands is pledged) as a suitable 
and auspicious period, after which the said revenue 
may be distributed among the several States of the 
Union for the purpose of extending the means of 

336 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

education, and thereby promoting the general welfare 
of the Union, strengthening its bands, and perpetuat- 
ing its blessings. Your committee would therefore 
recommend the adoption of the following resolutions : 
5 Resolved by the senate and house of representa- 
tives of the State of Delaware in general assembly 
met, That this legislature view with jealous eye every 
attempt to make partial distri?jution of the public 
lands of the Union among the States, whether by 
i'> direct grant to the State or by nominal sales at re- 
duced prices to the citizens thereof. 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this general 
assembly, the revenue arising from the sales of pub- 
lic lands of the Union ought to be distributed 
15 among the several States, for the purpose of ex- 
tending means of education throughout the re- 
public, as soon as the liquidation of the national 
debt shall warrant the same. . . . 
30. Register of Debates in Congress, 2 2d Congress, 
20 ist Session (Senate), Vol. VIII, pt. i. 

[Speech of Senator Benton in Opposition to 
the Distribution of Proceeds of Sales of Pub- 
lic Lands to all the States, June 28, 1832.] 
Pages 1151-1152. 
25 . . . It Ms not a system for the settlement of the 
internal improvement question. Its object is very- 
different from that. It is a tariff bill; it is an ultra 
tariff measure; the strongest and boldest which 

I This refers to Clay's distribution bill first reported April 16, 1832. 

337 



Source Problems in United States History 

has been attempted at this session. Tariff is stamped 
upon its face ; tariff' is emblazoned upon its borders ; 
tariff is proclaimed in all its features. In the first 
place, it is intended, by diverting the land revenue 
5 from the support of the Government, to create a 
vacuum in the treasury, which must be filled up 
by duties on imported goods. In the next place, it 
is intended, by keeping up the price of public lands, 
to prevent the emigration of laboring people from 

10 the manufacturing- States, and retain them where 
they were bom, to work in the factories. This is the 
true character of the bill; a tariff' bill; a land tariff' 
bill; conceived according to the plan of Mr. Rush,^ 
in 1S28, and the memorial- of the New York Tariff 

15 Convention in November of the last year. The 
Committee on Public Lands charged this design 
upon this bill; they quoted Mr. Rush, and the 
memorial of the New York Tariff* Convention, to 
prove that character upon it; and their charge has 

20 not been met. A feeble attempt at the vindication 
of Mr. Rush has fixed the design more firmly upon 
him. The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Clay] in- 
forms the Senate that he suggested to Mr. Rush, 
before his report was communicated to Congress, 

25 that it might be misunderstood, and that he had 

better omit what related to the public lands and 

manufactures. He suggested to him that it might 

be misunderstood! Yes, misunderstood! and that 

iSee document 35. - Ibid., t,6. 

338 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

very phrase proves that it was understood ! that the 
Senator of Kentucky understood it at the first blush 
precisely as every body else has understood it ever 
since. But the memorial of the New York Conven- 
5 tion, which has been printed and laid upon our 
tables, that also is quoted by the Public Lands Com- 
mittee, and no notice is taken of it by the Senator 
of Kentucky, nor by the Senator from Ohio, [Mr. 
Ewing]. Why do they omit to notice that me- 

10 morial? Because it is full and plain, express and 
explicit, up to the mark, and direct and open in 
favor of preventing emigration to the West for the 
purpose of detaining the laboring population to 
work in the factories. There is no room for dispute 

15 about it, and, therefore, the Senators who undertake 
to answer the report of the Land Committee, pru- 
dently pass by that memorial, and the unansw^er- 
able argument founded upon it, although referred 
to it in the body of the report, and quoted verbatim 

20 in the appendix. The fact is clear; the conclusion 
irresistible ; the character undeniable, that this land 
bill is a tariff measure; and that the new States are 
to be oppressed in the price of the public lands, for 
the purpose of preventing emigration and of supply- 

25 laborers to the factories. 

31. Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 
ist Session (Senate), Vol. VI, pt. i. [Reso- 
lution of Senator Foot of Connecticut, De- 
cember 29, 1829.] 

339 



Source Problems in United States History 

Pages 3-4. 

Resolved, That the Committee on Public Lands 
be instructed to inquire into the expediency of limit- 
ing for a certain period the sales of the public lands 

s to such lands only as have heretofore been offered 
for sale, and are subject to en.try at the minimum 
price. And also, whether the office of Surveyor 
General may not be abolished without detriment 
to the public interest.^ 

:o 32. Register oj Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Senator 
Benton, of Missouri, December 30, 1829.] 
Pa-ges 4-5. 

. . . The Senator from Connecticut shakes his 
head, but he cannot shake the conviction out of my 

IS head, [said Mr. B.] that a check to Western emigra- 
tion will be the effect of this resolution. The West 
is my country; not his. I know it; he does not. 
I know the practical effect of his resolution would 
be to check emigration to it ; for who would remove 

20 to a new country if it were not to get new lands. 
The idea of checking emigration to the West was 
brought forward openly at the last increase of the 
tariff. The Secretary of the Treasury gave it a 
place in his annual report upon the finances. ^ He 

25 dwelt openly and largely upon the necessity of check- 
ing the absorbing force of this emigration, in order 

*See document 26 above for the amount of unsold land in 
December, 1828. Since the annual demand was only for about one 
million acres, Senator Foot declared that his resolution was justified, 
30 2 ggg document 35 below. 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

to keep people in the East to work in the manufac- 
tories. I commented somewhat severely upon his 
report at the time. I reprobated its doctrines. I 
did it in full Senate, in the current of an ardent de- 

5 bate, and no Senator contested the propriety of the 
construction which I had put upon the Secretary's 
words. No Senator stood up to say that emigra- 
tion ought to be stopped for that purpose; but sys- 
tematic efforts go on, the effect of which is to stop 

10 it. The sentiment has shown itself here in different 
forms, at various times, and has often been trampled 
under foot. The resolution now before us involves the 
same consequence, but in a new phraseology. What 
are the lands to which the gentleman would hmit 

IS the sales? What are they that could be sold, if 
his resolution should take effect? Scraps; mere 
refuse; the leavings of repeated sales and pickings! 
Does he suppose that any man of substance would 
remove to the West for the purpose of establishing 

20 his family on these miserable remnants? They are 
worth something to those who are there, to farmers 
whose plantations they adjoin, to settlers who have 
made some improvement upon them; but they are 
not the object to attract emigration. The man that 

25 moves to a new country wants new lands ; he wants 
first choice; he does not move for refuse, for the 
crumbs that remain after others are served. The re- 
ports of the registers and receivers show the character ^ 

* See document 26 above. 
341 



Source iVoblcins in United States History B 

of these seventy millions to whitji the gentleman 
refers, and which alone would be in market under 
his plan, to be such as I have represented it; the 
good land all picked out, inferior and broken tracts 

s only remaining, such as may be desirable for wood, 
or outlet, or to keep off a bad neighbor, to the 
farmer whose estate they adjoin, or to a poor family, 
but no object to induce emigrants to come from other 
States. 

10 33. Register of Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Senator 
Benton, January 18, 1830.] 
Page 24. 

. . . Manufactories are now realizing what was said 
by Dr. Franklin forty-five years ago, that they need 

IS great numbers of poor people to do the work for 
small wages; that these poor people are easily got 
in Europe, where there was no land for them, but 
that they could not be got in America till the lands 
were taken up. These are the words of that wise 

20 man, near half a century ago. The experience of 
the present day is verifying them. The manufac- 
tories want poor people to do the work for small 
wages; these poor people wish to go to the West 
and get land; to have flocks and herds — to have 

25 their own fields, orchards, gardens, and meadows — • 
their ow^n cribs, barns, and dairies ; and to start their 
children on a theatre where they can contend with 
equal chances with other people's children for 
honors and dignities of the country. This is what 

342 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

the jjoor jjcople wish to do. How to ]jrevcnt it — 
how to keeij them from straying off in this manner — 
is the question. The late vSeeretary of the Treasury 
could discover no better mode than in the idea of 
5 a bounty u]jon n on -emigration, in the vshape of jjro- 
tection to domestic manufactures! A most complex 
scheme of injustice, which taxes the South to injure 
the West, to paux^crize the poor of the North! All 
this is bad enough, but it is a trifle, a lame, weak 

i^> and impotent contrivance, compared to the scheme 
which is now on the table. This resolution, which 
we are now considering, is the true measure for 
supplying the poor x->eoxjle which the manufactories 
need. It x->roposes to take away the inducement to 

15 emigration. It takes all the fresh lands out of mar- 
ket. It stox)S the surveys, abolishes the office of 
Surveyor General, confines the settlements, limits 
the sales to the refuse of innumerable x^ickings ; and 
thus annihilates the very object of attraction — • 

20 breaks and destroys the magnet which was drawing 
the x^eox^le of the Northeast to the blooming regions 
of the West. 

34. Register of Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Sen- 
ator Benton, January 19, 1830.] 

25 Page 34. 

. . . But, sir, there is another x^urx^ose to which it 
has been supposed the p)ublic lands can be axjplied, 
still more objectionable. I mean that suggested in 
a report from the Treasury Department, under the 

343 



Source Problems in United States History 

late administration, of so regulating the disposition 
of the public lands as to create and preserve, in 
certain quarters of the Union, a population suitable 
for conducting great manufacturing establishments. 
5 It is supposed, sir, by the advocates of American 
System, that the great obstacle to the progress of 
manufactures in this country, is the want of that 
low and degraded population which infest the 
cities and towns of Europe, who, having no other 
10 means of subsistence, will work for the lowest wages, 
and be satisfied with the smallest possible share of 
human enjoyment. And this difficulty it is proposed 
to overcome, by so regulating and limiting the sales 
of the public lands, as to prevent the drawing off 
15 this portion of the population from the manufactur- 
ing States. Sir, it is bad enough that Government 
should presume to regulate the industry of man; 
it is sufficiently monstrous that they should attempt, 
by arbitrary legislation, artificially to adjust and 
20 balance the various pursuits of society, and to 
'organize the whole labor and capital of the coun- 
try.' But what shall we say of the resort to such 
means for these purposes! What! create a manu- 
factory of paupers, in order to enable the rich pro- 
as prietors of woolen and cotton factories to amass 
wealth? From the bottom of my soul do I abhor 
and detest the idea, that the powers of the Federal 
Government should ever be prostituted for such 
purposes. Sir, I hope we shall act on a more just 

344 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

and liberal system of policy. The people of America 
are, and ought to be for a century to come, essen- 
tially an agricultural people: and I can conceive of 
no policy that can possibly be pursued in relation 

5 to the public lands, none that would be more 'for 
the common benefit of all the States' than to use 
them as the means of furnishing a secure asylum 
to that class of our fellow-citizens, who in any por- 
tion of that country may find themselves unable 

10 to procure a comfortable subsistence by means im- 
mediately within their reach. I would by a just and 
liberal system convert into great and flourishing 
communities, that entire class of persons, who 
would otherwise be paupers in your streets, and out- 

15 casts in society, and by doing so you will but fulfil 
the great trust which has been confided to your 
care. 

35. Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury of the 
United States, Vol. II. [Report on the 

20 Finances, December 8, 1827, by Richard 

Rush.] 
Pages 405-406. 

. . . There is an inducement to increase legislative 
protection to manufactures, in the actual internal 

25 condition of the United States, which is viewed 
with an anxiousness belonging to its peculiar char- 
acter and intrinsic weight. It is that which arises 
from the great extent of their unsold lands. The 
magnitude of the interests at stake in this part of 

345 



Source Problems in United States History 

our public affairs ought not to appal us from ap- 
proaching it. It should rather impel us to look at 
it with the more earnest desire to arrive at correct 
opinions on any course of legislation that may 
5 affect, primarily or remotely, an interest so full of 
importance. The maxim is held to be a sound 
one, that the ratio of capital to population should, 
if possible, be kept on the increase. When this 
takes place, the demand and compensation for labor 

10 will be proportionably increased, and the condition 
of the most numerous classes of community become 
improved. If the ratio of capital to population be 
diminished, a contrary state of things will be the 
result. The manner in which the remote lands of 

IS the United States are selling and settling, whilst 
it may possibly tend to increase more quickly the 
aggregate population of the country, and the mere 
means of subsistence, does not increase capital in 
the same proportion. It is a proposition too plain 

20 to require elucidation, that the creation of capital is 
retarded, rather than accelerated, by the diffusion 
of a thin population over a great surface of soil. 
Any thing that may serve to hold back this tendency 
to diffusion from running too far and too long into 

25 an extreme, can scarcely prove otherwise than 
salutary. Moreover, the further encouragement of 
manufactures by legislative means would be but a 
counterbalance, and at r^iost a partial one, to the 
encouragement to agriculture by legislative means, 

346 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

standing out in the very terms upon which the public 
lands are sold. It is not here intended to make the 
system of selling off the territorial domain of the 
Union a subject of any commentary, and still less 

5 of any complaint. The system is interwoven bene- 
ficially with the highest interests and destiny of the 
nation. It rests upon foundations, both of princi- 
ples and practice, deep and immoveable; foundations 
not to be uprooted or shaken. But our gravest 

to attention may, on this account, be but the more 
wisely summoned to the consideration of correlative 
duties, which the existence of such a system in the 
heart of the state imposes. It cannot be overlooked, 
that the prices at which fertile bodies of land may 

'5 be bought of the Government, under this system, 
operate as a perpetual allurement of their purchase. 
It must, therefore be taken in the light of a bounty, 
indelibly written in the text of the laws themselves, 
in favor of agricultural pursuits. Such it is in effect, 

'o though not in form. 

Perhaps no enactment of legislative bounties has 
ever before operated upon a scale so vast, through- 
out a series of years, and over the face of an entire 
nation, to turn population and labor into one partic- 

's ular channel, preferably to all others. The utmost 
extent of protection granted to manufactures or 
commerce, by our statutes, collectively, since the first 
foundation of the Government, has been, in its mere 
effect of drawing the people of the United States 

347 



Source Problems in United States History 

into those pursuits, as nothing to it. No scale of 
imposts, no prohibitions or penalties, no bounties, 
no premiums, enforced or dispensed at the custom- 
house, has equalled it. It has served, and still 

5 serves, to draw, in an annual stream, the inhabi- 
tants of a majority of the States, including amongst 
them at this day a portion (not small) of the western 
States, into the settlement of fresh lands, lying still 
farther and farther off. If the population of these 

10 States, not yet redundant in fact, though appearing 
to be so, under this legislative incitement to emi- 
grate, remained fixed in more instances, as it probably 
would by extending the motives to manufacturing 
labor, it is believed that the nation at large would 

15 gain, in two ways: first, by the more rapid accumu- 
lation of capital; and next, by the gradual reduc- 
tion of the excess of its agricultural population over 
that engaged in other vocations. It is not imagined 
that it would ever be practicable, even if it were de- 

20 sirable, to turn this stream of emigration aside; 
but resources opened, through the influence of the 
laws, in new fields of industry, to the inhabitants 
of the States already sufficiently peopled to enter 
upon them, might operate to lessen, in some degree, 

25 and usefully lessen, its absorbing force. The eye 
of legislation, intent upon the whole good of the 
nation, will look to each part, not separately as a 
part, but in conjunction with the whole. . . . Agricult- 
ure itself would be essentially benefited; the price 

348 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

of lands in all the existing States would soon become 
enhanced, as well as the produce from them, by a 
policy that would in anywise tend to render portions 
of their present population more stationary, by sup- 

5 plying new and adequate motives to their becoming 
so. And, as it is, the laws that have largely, in 
effect, throughout a long course of time, superin- 
duced disinclinations to manufacturing labor, by 
their overpowering calls to rural labor, in the mode 

10 of selling off the public domain, the claim of further 
legal protection to the former kind of labor, at this 
day, seems to wear an aspect of justice no less than 
of expediency. 
36. Register of Debates in Congress, 2 2d Congress, 

IS ist Session, Vol. VIII, pt. in. Appendix. 

[Extract from the memorial of the New York 
Tariff Convention of November, 18 ji, presented 
to Congress, March 26, i8j2.] 
Page 126. 

20 The last advantage which your memorialists 
propose to mention, as resulting from the establish- 
ment of domestic manufactures, is their effect in 
restraining emigration from the settled to the un- 
settled parts of the country. It is true, as a general 

25 principle, that manufactures add to the wealth and 
population of the country, the whole amount of 
capital and labor to which they give employment; 
but, in the particular case of the United States, 
where large tracts of good unoccupied land are con- 

349 



Source Problems in United States History 

tinually for sale at low prices, it is probable, as your 
memorialists have already remarked, that some of 
the persons who, under the influence of the pro- 
tecting policy, invest their capital and labor in 
5 manufactures, would, if this field of employment 
' had not been opened to them at home, have emi- 
grated to some of the unsettled parts of the country, 
and been occupied in clearing land. But when an 
individual can obtain a profitable market for his 
10 labor, at his own door, in the midst of his friends 
and kindred, and of objects that are connected with 
the agreeable associations of his early years, he will 
hardly be tempted to go in search of it to a distant 
unexplored wilderness. The increase of population 
IS which thus takes place in the manufacturing States, 
by creating an increased demand for provisions and 
materials, renders it in turn more advantageous for 
the agricultural States to extend their industry at 
home than to send off continually new colonies. In 
20 this way, the tide of emigration, without being 
wholly dammed up, is considerably checked through- 
out all the settled parts of the Union, and the popula- 
tion of all begins to put on a more consolidated shape. 
37. Register of Debates in Congress, 2 2d Congress, ist 
25 Session (Senate), Vol. VIII, pt. i. [Speech of 

Senator Robinson of Illinois, July 3, 1832.] 
Page 1 1 74. 

. . . But, say some gentlemen of the old States, 
if the price of public lands is reduced in the West, 

350 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

you take from us our population. This doctrine, 
I am sorry to say, has obtained a currency worthy 
a purer coin. And to what does it lead? To 
the benefit of the poor? No. To the advance- 
5 ment and settlement of the country, or sale of 
the unappropriated lands? No. To the increase 
of the revenue? No. To the happiness and pros- 
perity of the people, especially the poorer classes? 
No. But I will tell you what it does do: it keeps 

lo the poor and landless tenants and vassals to the 
wealth - swoln landlords ; it opens to the land- 
jobber a wider field of speculation; it impoverishes 
and retards the settlement of the new States; it 
suppresses enterprise; it gives to the man, (it is 

IS inexcusable, I suppose, to say manufacturer,) who 
wants the labor of his indigent neighbors and 
neighbors' children, the opportunity to secure it at 
his own price and his own calling. 
38. Register of Debates y etc. Ibid. [Speech of Senator 

20 Ewing of Ohio, June 28, 1832.] 

Page 1 142. 

... It would seem as if, in the opinion of the 
honorable chairman of the Committee on Public 
Lands, the very acme of national prosperity con- 

25 sists in emigration, and that all legislation should 
be aimed and directed to the encouragement of that 
sole object; and more especially that, for the benefit 
of the West, all other occupations, in other portions 
of the Union, should be discouraged or destroyed, 

35^ 



Source Problems in United States History 

that the inhabitants may be driven or allured into 
emigration. Hence, sir, the heavy anathemas pro- 
nounced against the report of Mr. Rush when at the 
head of the treasury, in which he urges the danger 

5 of holding out new inducements to migration, lest 
it should draw off that portion of our population 
now engaged in manufactures, and make them 
agriculturists. 

Now, sir, I, as a Western man,^ concur in the prin- 

10 ciples contained in that branch of Mr. Rush's re- 
port; no matter how much they have been the 
subject of misrepresentation and abuse, they con- 
tain sound political and practical wisdom, and I am 
willing to endorse for, and stand prepared to sus- 

15 tain them; but be it not forgotten that no idea is 
held forth of discouraging or checking the natural 
regular current of emigration; this was, according 
to his views, to remain unaltered and undisturbed, 
except as new fields for the enterprise and industry 

20 of our citizens might direct them to other objects. 

For the good of our country, our whole country, 

and all and each portion of our country, new and 

old, emigration has been and still is, rapid enough; 

it requires no new inducements ; and except the con- 

25 tinued improvement in the facilities of mutual inter- 

1 Senator Ewing argued also that a reduction in the price of lands 
would lower the value of land already taken up in Ohio, thus show- 
ing the rapidity with which this state tended to approach the 
economic status of eastern states. See Benton's comment, docu- 
30 ment 25, note i. 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

course, nothing to encourage, nothing to hasten it. 
So far as the West is concerned, certainly it requires 
nothing more. We are, there, essentially, an agri- 
cultural people ; the products of the earth are raised 

5 in superabundance, and a market is all that is 

wanting to give us independence, and even wealth. 

, It would be madness in us, then, to desire that the 

workshops of the East, which purchase our produce, 

and supply us with their fabrics, should be broken 

10 up, and that the men and capital which they em- 
ploy should be induced, by bounties from the Govern- 
ment, to transfer themselves to our neighborhood, 
and become our rivals in agriculture. It is better 
for us that they should remain where they are, and 

IS prosper, while they advance our prosperity as well 
as theirs, than that they should be transferred to 
our borders, at the expense and sacrifice of both. 
3 9 . Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, Comprising Por- 
tions of his Diary, etc.. Vol. IX, April 19, 1835. 

20 Page 235. 

. . . That debate [in the Senate, winter of 
1829-30], was one of the earliest results of that 
coalition between the South and the West to sac- 
rifice the manufacturing and free-labor interest 

25 of the North and East to the slave-holding in- 
terest of the South, by the plunder of the public 
lands surrendered by the South to the new Western 
States. This was the secret of that combined and 
simultaneous attack of Hayne and Benton upon the 
■ 353 



Source Problems in United States History 

Eastern section of the Union, so manfully and ably 
met and repelled by Webster and Sprague. The 
Jackson Administration had been formed upon this 
combination, and had drawn New York and Penn- 

s sylvania into its vortex. It is rather surprising that 
the sacrifice of the public lands was not entirely 
consummated. Benton was the founder of this 
project. Clay had built his reputation as a states- 
man and raised his ladder to the Presidency upon 

lo internal improvement of the Western country. He 
had connected himself with the free-labor interests 
of the North in this pursuit. Benton, who had been 
one of his partisans till then, saw he could sup- 
plant him by purchasing of the South the plunder 

15 of the public lands and selling to them the Western 
interest of internal improvement. This was the 
governing impulse of the joint movement of Hayne 
and Benton against the East and North in that de- 
bate. Why can I pursue this subject no further? 

20 40. Register of Debates in Congress, 21st Congress, 
ist Session, Vol. VI, pt. i. [Speech of Sen- 
ator Webster, January 20, 1830.] 
Pages 39-4.0-. 
... I come now to that part of the gentleman's 

25 [Hayne] speech which has been the main occasion of 
my addressing the Senate. The East! the ob- 
noxious, the rebuked, the always reproached East! 
We have come in, sir, on this debate, for even more 
than a common share of accusation and attack. If 

354 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

the honorable member from South CaroHna was not 
our original accuser,^ he has yet recited the indict- 
ment against us, with an air and tone of publick 
prosecutor. He has summoned us to plead on our 

5 arraignment; and he tells us we are charged with 
the crime of a narrow ar^d selfish policy; of endeav- 
oring to restrain emigration to the West, and, 
having that object in view, of maintaining a steady 
opposition to Western measures and Western in- 

lo terests. And the cause of all this narrow and selfish 
policy the gentleman finds in the tariff. I think he 
called it the accursed policy of the tariff. This 
policy, the gentleman tells us, requires multitudes of 
dependent laborers, a population of paupers, and 

15 that it is to secure these at home that the East op- 
poses whatever may induce to Western emigration. 
Sir, I rise to defend the East. I rise to repel, both 
the charge itself, and the cause assigned for it. I 
deny that the East has, at any time, shown an 

20 illiberal policy towards the West. I pronounce the 
whole accusation to be without the least foundation 
in any facts, existing either now, or at any previous 
time. I deny it in the general, and I deny each and 
all its particulars. I deny the sum total, and I 

25 deny the detail. I deny that the East has ever 
manifested hostility to the West, and I deny that 

1 Webster was really replying tc Benton's arguments, but he could 
not well attack him directly because his purpose was to make an al- 
liance between the Northeast and West. 

24 355 



Source Problems in United States History 

she has adopted any poHcy that would have led her 
in such a course. But the tariff! the tariff!! Sir, 
I beg to say, in regard to the East that the original 
policy of the tariff is not hers, whether it be wise or 

5 unwise. New England is not its author. If gentle- 
men will recur to the tariff of 1816, they will find that 
that was not carried by New England votes. It 
was truly more a Southern than an Eastern measure. 
And what votes carried the tariff of 1824? Cer- 

10 tainly not those of New England. It is known to 
have been made a matter of reproach, especially 
against Massachusetts, that she would not aid the 
tariff of 1824; and a selfish motive was imputed to 
her for that also. In point of fact, it is true that 

IS she did, indeed, oppose the tariff of 1824. There 
were more votes in favor of the law in the House of 
Representatives, not only in each of a majority of 
the Western States, but even in Virginia herself 
also, than in Massachusetts. It was literally forced 

20 upon New England ; and this shows how groundless, 
how void of all probability any charge must be, 
which imputes to her hostility to the growth of the 
Western States, as naturally flowing from a cherished 
policy of her own. But leaving all conjectures about 

25 cause and motives, I go at once to the fact, and I 
meet it with one broad, comprehensive, and em- 
phatic negative. I deny that in any part of her his- 
tory, at any period of the Government, or in relation 
to any leading subject. New England has manifested 

356 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

such hostility as is charged upon her. On the con- 
trary, I maintain that, from the day of the cession of 
the territories b}^ the States to Congress, no portion 
of the countr}^ has acted with, either more Hberahty 
or more intelHgence, on the subject of the Western 
lands in the new States, than New England. This 
statement, though strong, is no stronger than the 
strictest truth will warrant. . . . 

At the foundation of the constitution of these new 
Northwestern States, [lies the celebrated Ordinance 
of 1787] we are accustomed, sir, to praise the law- 
givers of antiquity; we help to perpetuate the fame 
of Solon and Lycurgus; but I doubt whether one 
single law of any lawgiver, ancient or modern, has 
produced effects of more distinct, marked, and last- 
ing character, than the ordinance of '87. That in- 
strument was drawn by Nathan Dane, then, and 
now, a citizen of Massachusetts. . . . Now, sir, this 
great measure again was carried by the North and 
by the North alone. There were, indeed, individuals 
elsewhere favorable to it: but it was supported as 
a measure, entirely by the votes of the Northern 
States. If New England had been governed by the 
narrow and selfish views now ascribed to her, this 
very measure was, of all others, the best calculated 
to thwart her purposes. It was of all things, the 
very means of rendering certain a vast emigration 
from her own population to the West. She looked 
to that consequence only to disregard it. She 

357 



Source Problems in United States History 

deemed the regulation a most useful one to the 
States that would spring upon the territory, and 
advantageous to the country at large. She adhered 
to the principle of it perseveringly, year after year, 
5 until it was finally accomplished.^ 
41. Register of Debates, etc. Ibid. [Speech of Sen- 
ator Benton, February 2, 1830.] 
Page 99. 

... I have already given the proof of the fact, that 
10 the South is entitled to the honor of originating the 
clause against slavery in the Northwest Territory: 
the state of the votes upon its adoption also shows 
that she is entitled to the honor of passing it : there 
being but eight States present, four from eaph side 
15 the Potomac, only one from New England, and all 
voting for it. This shows the great mistake which 
is committed in claiming the merit of that ordinance 
for the Northeast, and founding upon that claim a 
title to the gratitude of the Northwestern States. 
20 42. Register of Debates , etc. Ibid. [Speech of Sen- 
ator Webster, Janua'ry 20, 1830.] 
Page 40 [continued]. 

Leaving, then, sir, these two great and lead- 
ing measures, and coming down to our own times, 
25 what is there in the history of recent measures of 
Government that exposes New England to this ac- 

1 Compare documents 9 and 13 above, giving Senator Benton's 
views of the attitude of New England toward the West with re- 
spect to the Jay treaty and the Grayson land ordinance of 1785. 

358 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

cusation of hostility to Western interests ? I assert, 
boldly, that in all measures conducive to the welfare 
of the West, since my acquaintance here, no part 
of the country has manifested a more liberal policy. 
5 I beg to say, sir, that I do not state this with a view 
of claiming for her any special regard on that ac- 
count. Not at all. She does not place her sup- 
port of measures on the ground of favor conferred; 
far otherwise. What she has done has been con- 

lo sonant to her view of the general good, and, there- 
fore, she has done it . . . individuals ^ may have felt, 
undoubtedly, some natural regret at finding the rela- 
tive importance of their own States diminished by the 
growth of the West. But New England has re- 

15 garded that as in the natural course of things, and 
has never complained of it. Let me see, sir, any 
one measure favorable to the West which was op- 
posed by New England, since the Government be- 
stowed its attention to these Western improvements. 

20 Select what you will, if it be a measure of acknowl- 
edged utility, I answer for it, it will be found that not 
only were New England votes for it, but that New 
England votes carried it. Will you take the Cum- 
berland Road ? Who has made that ? Will you take 

25 the Portland Canal? Whose support carried that 
bill ? Sir, at what period beyond the Greek kalends 
could these measures, or measures like these, have 
been accomplished, had they depended on the votes 

1 Perhaps referring to such men as Timothy Pickering. 
359 



Source Problems in United States History 

of Southern gentlemen? Why, sir, we know that 
we must have waited till the constitutional notions 
of those gentlemen had undergone an entire change. 
Generally speaking, they have done nothing, and 

5 can do nothing. All that has been effected has been 
done by the votes of reproached New England. I 
undertake to say, sir, that if you look to the votes 
on any one of these measures, and strike out from 
the list of ayes the names of New England members, 

10 it will be found that in every case the South would 
then have voted down the West, and the measure 
would have failed. I do not believe that any one 
instance can be found where this is not strictly true. 
I do not believe that one dollar has been expended 

IS for these purposes beyond the mountains, which 
could have been obtained, without the cordial co- 
operation and support from New England. Sir, I put 
the [question to the] gentleman (sic) to the West it- 
self. Let gentlemen who have sat here ten years, 

20 come forth and declare by what aids, and by 
whose votes, they have succeeded in measures 
deemed of essential importance to their part of 
the country. To all men of sense and candor, in 
or out of Congress, who have any knowledge on 

25 the subject, New England may appeal, for refuta- 
tion of the reproach now attempted to be cast upon 
her in this respect. I take liberty to repeat that 
I make no claim, on behalf of New England, or 
on account of that which I have not (sic) [viz., now] 

360 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

stated. She does not profess to have acted out of 
favor: for it would not have become her so to 
have acted. She soHcits for no special thanks ; but, 
in the consciousness of having done her duty in these 

5 things, uprightly and honestly, and with fair and 

liberal spirit, be assured she will repel, whenever 

she thinks the occasion calls for it, an unjust and 

groundless imputation of partiality and selfishness. 

The gentleman alluded to a report of the late 

10 Secretary of the Treasury, which, according to his 
reading or construction of it, recommended what he 
called the tariff policy, or a branch of that policy ; 
that is, the restraining of emigration to the West, 
for the purpose of keeping hands at home to carry 

15 on the manufactures. I think, sir, that the gentle- 
man misapprehended the meaning of the Secretary, 
in the interpretation given to his remarks. I under- 
stood him only as saying, that, since the low price 
of lands at the West acts as a constant and standing 

2o bounty to agriculture, it is, on that account, the 
more reasonable to provide encouragement for 
manufactures. But, sir, even if the Secretary's 
observation were to be understood as the gentleman 
understands it, it would not be a sentiment borrowed 

25 from any New England source. Whether it be 
right or wrong, it does not originate in that quarter. 



[Speech of Mr. Webster, January 27, 1830.] 



Source Problems in United States History- 
Page 65. 

... I will tell the gentleman when, and how, and 
why, New England has supported measures favor- 
able to the West. I have already referred to the 
5 early history of the Government; to the first ac- 
quisition of the lands; to the original laws for dis- 
posing of them, and for governing the territories 
where they lie; and have shown the influence of 
New England men and New England principles in all 
io these leading measures. I should not be pardoned, 
were I to go over that ground again. Coming to 
more recent times, and to measures of a less general 
character, I have endeavored to prove that everything 
of this kind, designed for Western improvement, has 
IS depended on the votes of New England; all this is 
true, beyond the power of contradiction. 

And now, sir, there are two measures to which I 
will refer, not so ancient as to belong to the early 
history of the public lands, and not so recent as to 
20 be on this side of the period when the gentleman 
charitably imagines a new direction may have been 
given to New England feeling and New England 
votes. These measures and the New England votes 
in support of them, may be taken as samples and 
25 specimens of all the rest. 

In 1820, (observe in 1820) the people of the West 
besought Congress for a reduction in the price of 
lands. In favor of that reduction. New England, 
with a delegation of forty members in the other 

362 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

House, gave thirty-three votes, and one only against 
it. The four Southern States, with fifty members, 
gave thirty-two votes for it, and seven against it. 
Again, in 182 1, (observe, again, sir, the time) the law 
passed for the relief of the purchasers of the public 
lands. This was a measure of vital importance to 
the West, and more especially to the Southwest. 
It authorized the relinquishment of contracts for 
lands which had been entered into at high prices, 
and a reduction in the other case of not less than 
thirty-seven and one-half per cent, on the purchase 
money. Many millions of dollars — six or seven I 
believe, at least, probably much more — were relin- 
quished by this law. On this bill, New England, 
with her forty members, gave more affirmative votes 
than the four Southern States, with their fifty-two or 
fifty- three members. 

43. Register of Debates, etc. [Speech of Senator Ben- 
ton, February 2, 1830.] 

Pages 95-97- 

. . . Mr. Benton said he could not permit the Sen- 
ate to adjourn, and the assembled audience of yes- 
terday to separate, without seeing an issue joined on 
the unexpected declaration then made by the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts [Mr. Webster] — the decla- 
ration that the Northeast section of the Union had, 
at all times, and under all circumstances, been the 
uniform friend of the West, the South inimical to it, 
and that there was no grounds for asserting the con- 

363 



Source Problems in United States History 

trary. Taken by surprise, as I was, [said Mr. 
Benton] by a declaration so little expected, and so 
much in conflict with what I had considered estab- 
lished history, I felt it to be due to all concerned to 

5 meet the declaration upon the instant. . . . The 
warmth of the moment prevented me from observing 
what was most obvious — namely, that the resolution 
under discussion was itself the most pregnant illus- 
tration of my side of the issue. It is a resolution 

10 of direst import to the New States in the West, 
involving in its four-fold aspect, the stoppage of 
emigration to that region, the limitation of its settle- 
ment, the suspension of surveys, the abolition of the 
Surveyor's office, and the surrender of large portions 

IS of Western Territory to the use and dominion of 
wild beasts; and, in addition to all this., connecting 
itself, in time and spirit, with another resolution in 
the other end of the capitol, for delivering up the 
public lands in the new States to the avarice of the 

20 old ones, to be coined into gold and silver for their 
benefit. This resolution, thus hostile in itself, and 
aggravated by an odious connexion, came upon us 
from the Northeast, and was resisted by the South. 
Its origin, and its progress, was a complete exemplifi- 

25 cation of the relative affections which the two Atlantic 
sections of the Union bear to the West. . . . Yet, I 
must say — the speech of yesterday [that of Web- 
ster] forces me to say it — that, in a political point of 
view, the population of New England does not 

364 



Relation of Eastern States to the West 

stand undivided before me. A line of division is 
drawn through the mass, whether, 'horizontally,' 
leaving the rich and well-bom above, the poor and 
ill-bom below; or vertically, so as to present a sec- 
s tion of each layer, is not for me to affirm. The 
division exists. On one side of it, we see friends 
who have adhered to us in every diversity of fortune, 
who have been with us in six troubles, and will not 
desert us in the seventh; men who were with us in 

10 '98, and in the late war; whose grief and joy rose 
and sunk with ours in the struggle with England; 
who wept with us over the calamities of the North- 
west, and rejoiced in the splendid glories of the 
Southwest! On the other side, we see those who 

IS were against us in all these trials; who thought it 
unbecoming a moral and religious people to celebrate 
the triumphs of their country over its enemy, but 
quite becoming the same people, to be pleased at 
the victories of the enemy, over their country ; who 

20 gave a dinner to him that surrendered Detroit. The 
line of the division exists. On one side of it stands 
the democracy of New England, to whom we give the 
right hand of fellowship at home and abroad ; on the 
other side, all that stands opposed to that democracy, 

25 for whose personal welfare we have the best wishes ; 
but with whom we must decline, as publicly as it was 
proffered, the honor of that alliance which was yester- 
day vouchsafed to the West, if not in direct terms, at 
least by an implication which no one misunderstood. 

365 



PROBLEM VI 
VI.— The Slavery Problem 



The Slavery Problem 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM 

NEGRO slaves were brought to Virginia in 1619 to 
aid in the heavy work of clearing the wilderness 
and raising tobacco for a growing market in Europe. 
As negroes had long been used by the Spanish in the 
West Indies in a similar way it was only natural that the 
English should seek their labor in the same way. Nor 
did any one imagine that there was any great moral or 
economic wrong involved. To capture a slave or to buy 
prisoners of war in Africa and sell them to American 
planters was to save the souls of heathens and at the 
same time put honest money into the pockets of enter- 
prising traders. 

As the years went by the tobacco plantations spread 
into Maryland and North Carolina and thousands of 
slaves became the chattels of the owners of these estates. 
And, moreover, the rice industry was introduced into 
South Carolina in 1694, and here again great nimibers of 
hardy workmen were imperatively demanded. The poor 
blacks from Africa became the field hands of that colony. 
It was only a few decades before slave plantations were 
established along every river in the South from Mary- 
land to Florida, and even in New England homes dusky 
hands were found to do the work of house servants. 

But the owners of plantations became the ruling class 
in the South and constitutional arrangements were made 
to secvire and perpetuate their power, Southern legisla- 

369 



Source Problems in United States History 

tures and courts were completely dominated by them. 
When the Middle and Southern colonies were drawn, 
about the middle of the eighteenth century, into the wars 
with the French along the Pennsylvania and Mar\^land 
frontiers, the small farmers and the more ambitious white 
men freed from their indentures became acquainted with 
the vast and fertile country beyond the Blue Ridge 
Mountains. When these men were released from the 
colors, many of them emigrated to the land of promise. 
They took few slaves with them. 

During the same period hundreds of thousands of Scotch - 
Irish and German immigrants poured into Pennsylvania 
and, finding their way to the West barred by war or In- 
dian resistance, they moved south and rapidly filled up 
the great back-country, already partly occupied by the 
native non-slaveholding population. Thus before 1776 
there was in every plantation colony a large anti-slavery 
and isolated up-country which was naturally hostile to 
the dominant and aristocratic masters who controlled the 
legislatures to which they must appeal for the establish- 
ment of local government and courts of justice. The 
planters never yielded except upon full understanding 
that they were still to hold the reins of authority. 

It was the back-country democracy, crying out for 
fairer representation in each of the Southern colonies, 
which gave impetus to the Revolution in that region. 
The masters also supported the same cause, but they 
were even more careful to guard their control of their 
legislatures. The new constitutions guaranteed the power 
and security of the masters everywhere. A minority of 
planters held perfect sway in every new state from Mary- 
land to Georgia. 

When the Federal constitution was drawn, the owners 
of slaves were able to insert in that document guarantees 
similar to those which they had exacted from their op- 

370 



The Slavery Problem 

ponents in their own states. Only in Federal affairs it 
was arranged that slave states should have representation 
for three-fifths of their negroes; while in any scheme 
of direct taxation which congress might adopt, the slaves 
were to be taxed as property. Secure in their own legis- 
latures and local courts, they had thus secured themselves 
against possible attack in the country as a whole. 

But during the Revolution the idea that all men are 
free and equal gained such vogue that liberal-minded 
men everywhere came to oppose slavery. In New Eng- 
land and the Middle States this opposition took the form 
of gradual emancipation of the blacks. The guarantee of 
the Federal constitution, to which the masters made con- 
stant appeal, soon came to be looked upon in the East 
as a Vjad bargain. It had been a bargain of the represen- 
tatives of the commercial interests of that section, who 
felt that they must have the support of all the states in 
order to compete with other nations in the world mar- 
kets, and the planters whose staples were always in de- 
mand in Europe. The more democratic the East became 
the more distasteful became the bargain. 

Slavery was, therefore, a national issue from the be- 
ginning of the present Federal government; and the fact 
that the owners of slaves, always a small minority, should 
control both their own states and the policy of the country 
at the same time made the issue tense. When, however, 
after 1816, manufacturing became the most important 
interest of the East and cotton-growing the absorbing 
business of the South, the natural antipathy of the sec- 
tions was intensified. The owners of mills became mas- 
ters of great groups of men just as the planters were 
masters of their environment. The former soon gained 
control of legislation in the East and the cotton-planters 
still held sway in the lower South and built new states 
to suit their ideals in Alabama and Mississippi. The 

371 



Source Problems in United States History 

manufacturers demanded of the Federal government pro- 
tection against competition from Europe; the planters 
demanded of the same government free trade, which was 
vital to their interests as the great exporters of the 
country. The wonder of the historian is that arguments 
such as we find in the following pages did not lead to 
disruption of the Union and civil war long before 1861. 

Under the stress of this economic, social and sectional 
conflict all the greater arguments for and against slavery 
were worked out and presented. The generous and hu- 
mane views of Franklin and Jefferson, as expressed in 
Revolutionary times and in the emancipation law of 
Pennsylvania, gave way in the South about 1830 to dog- 
matic defense; while the mild opposition of eastern 
Quakers became fierce and ruthless attack of men like 
William Lloyd Garrison and Theodore Parker. 

Yet on the solution of the problem depended the suc- 
cess of democratic government in the United States and 
consequently the best minds of both sections, as well as 
the most unreasoning ones, were constantly focused upon 
the problem. If the slaves were set free all Southerners 
wanted to know what could be done with the child-like 
blacks; if they were not set free all Northerners wanted 
to know how to check the growing and unceasing demands 
of the masters of slaves who must control the Federal 
policy or they would leave the Union. Thus the prob- 
lem of sectional power became intricately entangled with 
the problem of democracy. There seemed to be no peace- 
ful solution; and the Southerners drew the sword in 186 1. 

II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania. The Preamble. 
Vol. X, p. 67. The act of March i, 1780. 

This law, of which only the preamble is given here, was 

372 



The Slavery Problem 

thought to be the work of Benjamin Franklin. Judge St. 
George Tucker, of Virginia, wrote in 1796 that such was 
his understanding. The language of the preamble suggests 
Franklin, but there is apparently no positive proof. 

The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal edition, edited 
by Paul Leicester Ford, Vol. IV. (New York, 1904.) 

This is the description of slavery which Jefferson pub- 
lished in Paris in 1784 in his famous Notes on Virginia. 

St. George Tucker. A Dissertation on Slavery with a 
Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of it in the State of Vir- 
ginia. (Philadelphia, 1796.) 

A second edition of the pamphlet was published in New 
York in 1 86 1 . Jefferson wrote to the author in 1 7 9 7 : " But 
if something is not done, and soon done, we shall be the 
murderers of our own children." — Works, VIII, 335. 

Thomas Roderick Dew. A Review of the Debate in the 
Virginia Legislature, 1831-32. (Richmond, 1833.) 

Reprinted in 1849 ^^ Richmond and again in Charles- 
ton, 1852, in The Pro-Slavery Argument. It was pub- 
lished, for the last time, I believe, in Cotton is King and 
the Pro-Slavery Argument, edited by E. N. Elliott. (Au- 
gusta, Georgia, i860.) Dew was professor of history and 
political science in William and Mary College from 1826 
to 1836, and president of the same institution from 1836 
to 1846. He was called before a committee of the Virginia 
legislature in 1832 to give expert advice as to whether 
the state might safely abolish slavery. This book is his 
testimony as elaborated and published the next year. 
Few works have ever had a greater influence in shaping 
the course of the Southern states. Dew was, perhaps, 
the first public man who directly and openly attacked 
Jefferson on this subject. The legislature, which was at 
that time at the point of adopting a plan of gradual 
emancipation, abandoned the effort and the subject never 
came up again seriously in Virginia till after 1861. 

373 



Source Problems in United States History 

Henry Clay. The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay, 
edited by Leary and Getz, Vol. II. (Philadelphia, 1855.) 

A speech delivered in the United States Senate on 
February 7, 1839. 

The Works of William E. Channing, Vol. V. (Boston, 
1841.) 

A letter to Jonathan Phillips intended as a reply to 
Clay and to make his own position as a leader of the 
Unitarians clear. 

The Works of fohn C. Calhoun, edited by Richard K. 
Cralle. Six vols. (New York, 1854.) 

William Harper. A Memoir on Slavery in the Pro- 
Slavery Argument. (Charleston, 1852.) 

Reprinted in The Pro-Slavery Argument. 

Abraham Lincoln's Speeches, edited by J. B. McClure. 
(Chicago, 1 89 1.) 

The Barbarism of Slavery, a speech by Charles Sumner, 
delivered in the United States Senate, June 4, i860. 
Congressional Globe, 66th Congress, ist Session, 2590-92. 

This speech, like its predecessor, The Crime of Kansas, 
was circulated by the hundreds of thousands in the North 
in the years just preceding the civil war. 

The Life of Benjamin Morgan Palmer, by Thomas 
Cary Johnson. (Richmond, 1906.) 

This contains a Thanksgiving sermon by Palmer, de- 
livered in the First Presbyterian Church of New Orleans, ^ 
November 30, i860. It is a typical statement of the South- 
em attitude toward slavery and abolition for the period 
of 1850-60. 



III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

I . In what particulars do the doctrines of the preamble to the 
Pennsylvania emancipation law resemble and flow from 
the ideals of the Revolution? 
374 



The Slavery Problem 

2. What was Jefferson's view of the influence of slavery on 

the master and his family? Of the right of the master 
to his slave? 

3. How does St. George Tucker's doctrine compare with that 

of the Pennsylvania law? 

4. From Tucker's point of view was it a duty of Virginia to 

emancipate her slave population? Why? And when 
should the state act? 

5. What of the consistency of slavery and the professions of 

democracy? 

6. Compare the theory of the purpose of government as found 

in Dew's argument with that of Jefferson and Tucker. 

7. What was supposed to be the Divine will in all the earlier 

statements? What was Dew's teaching in this regard? 

8. What does Dew think of the doctrine of the Declaration of 

Independence? 

9. How does he regard slavery from the economic point of 

view? What would be the effect of sending ten thou- 
sand slaves to Africa each year? 

10. What was his idea of the effect of slavery on the morals of 

the master and his family? 

11. What was Dew's contention about the social and religious 

condition of the slave? 

12. How does Henry Clay connect slavery with the rights of 

the states? With the Federal constitution? 

13. What was Clay's prophecy as to the effect of emancipation? 

What does he think of the morality of uncompensated 
emancipation? 

14. Did Channing accept Clay's notion that slavery was immune 

from attack because of the rights of the states? Why? 

15. How did Channing regard Dew's claim that the master had 

a right to the labor of his slaves? Would Channing 
have agreed to the payment for slaves by the Federal 
government if they were to be set free? Why? 

16. What was Channing's view of the fugitive slave clause of the 

Federal constitution? Why would he return a fugitive? 

17. Does Channing agree with Dew's claim that the negro was 

happier as a slave than he would be as a free man ? Why? 
375 



Source Problems in United States History 

1 8. What according to Channing was the greatest evil of slav- 

ery? 

19. How does he meet the argument of Clay that the slave 

was property? Does he agree that there would be a 
race war in the South if emancipation were effected? 

20. What are the assumptions of Calhoun's statement on 

slavery? What does he think of the abolition move- 
ment? Why? 

21. What did Calhoun predict as the status of the negro in 

the South after emancipation? Of that of the white 
people? 

22. Compare Harper's treatment of the slavery problem with 

that of Dew. With that of Channing. 

23. What was Harper's idea as to the morals of the slavery 

system? As to the importance of slavery in the economy 
of the world? 

24. What sort of military support did he think wise for the 

slave states? Why? 

25. How did Lincoln regard the slavery problem? Why was he 

in so much doubt about a remedy? 

26. What are the assumptions of Charles Sumner: a, As to the 

powers of Congress? b, As to the property rights of 
masters? Compare his assumptions with those of 
Calhoun, 

27. What is the sanction of slavery according to Palmer? The 

duty of the master? Of the slave? The relation be- 
tween the two? 

28. Why was it sacrilege for any one to oppose slavery? How 

did he regard the election of Lincoln? Why did he 
make the comparison with the French revolution? 

29. In view of this argument and the preceding declaration of 

Sumner was any solution of the slavery problem, short 
of armed intervention, possible? 

30. Compare the views of Southern men of the period before 

1830 with those of Southern leaders after that date. 
Likewise compare those of the Pennsylvania, law and 
Channing with those of Sumner. 



IV. The Sources 

I. Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, Vol. X. [The 
Preamble to the law of March i, 1780.] 
Page 67. 

When we contemplate our abhorrence of that con- 
s dition to which the arms of tyranny of Great Britain 
were exerted to reduce us, when we look back on the 
variety of dangers to which we have been exposed, 
and how miraculously our wants in many instances 
have been supplied and our deliverances wrought, 
10 when even hope and human fortitude have become 
unequal to the conflict, we are unavoidably led to 
a serious and grateful sense of the manifold blessings 
we have undeservedly received from the hand of 
that Being from whom every good and perfect gift 
IS cometh. Impressed with these ideas, we conceive 
that it is our duty, and we rejoice that it is within 
our power, to extend a portion of that freedom to 
others, which hath been extended to us, and a re- 
lease from that thraldom, to which we ourselves 
20 were tyrannically doomed, and from which we have 
now every prospect of being delivered. It is not 
for us to enquire why, in the creation of mankind, 

377 



Source Problems in United States History 

the inhabitants of the several parts of the earth 
were distinguished by a difference in feature or com- 
plexion. It is sufficient to know that we are the 
work of an Almighty hand. We find in the distribu- 

5 tion of the human species that the most fertile as 
well as the most barren parts of the earth are in- 
habited by men of complexions different from ours 
and from each other, from whence we may reason- 
ably, as well as religiously, infer that He who placed 

10 them in their various situations hath extended equal- 
ly His care and protection to all, and that it becometh 
not us to counteract His mercies. 

We esteem it a peculiar blessing granted us that 
we are enabled this day to add one more step to 

IS universal civilization by removing as much as pos- 
sible the sorrows of those who have lived in un- 
deserved bondage and from which by the assumed 
authority of the Kings of Britain no effectual legal 
relief could be obtained. Weaned by a long course 

20 of experience from those narrow prejudices and par- 
tialities we had imbibed, we find our hearts en- 
larged with kindness and benevolence towards men 
of all conditions and nations and we conceive our- 
selves at this particular period extraordinarily called 

25 upon by the blessings which we have received to 
manifest the sincerity of our profession and to give 
substantial proof of our gratitude. 

[The law which follows provides for the gradual aboli- 
tion of slavery in Pennsylvania in the following manner: 

378 



The Slavery Problem 

I. All children bom of slaves shall be free after the 
passage of the act, but that such children shall remain 
as indentured servants to their masters till they 
reach the age of twenty-eight years; 2. all masters 
5 must register their slave children from date of the 

act on penalty of loss of their property rights in 
their young slaves, yet such masters shall be held for 
maintainance of slave children who may become a 
public charge; and 3, after passage of the act the 
10 free blacks shall enjoy the right of trial in the courts 

which white men enjoyed and they might acquire 
property as other people.] 

2. The Works of Thomas Jefferson, Federal edition, 
edited by Paul Leicester Ford, Vol. IV. ' 

15 Pages 82-84. 

The whole commerce between master and slave 
is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, 
the most unremitting despotism on the one part, 
and degrading submission on the other. Our chil- 

20 dren see this and learn to imitate it; for man is an 
imitative animal. This quality is the germ of all 
education in him. From his cradle to his grave he 
is learning to do what he sees others do. If a parent 
could find no motive either in his philanthropy or 

25 his self-love for restraining the intemperance of 
passion towards his slave, it should always be a suffi- 
cient one that his child is present. But generally it 
is not sufficient. The parent storms, the child looks 
on, catches the lineaments of his wrath, puts on the 

30 same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose 
rein to the worst of passions and thus nursed, edu- 

379 



Source Problems in United States History 

cated and daily exercised in tyranny, can not but 
be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. 

The man must be a prodig}' who" can retain his 
manners and morals undepraved by such circum- 

5 stances. And with what execrations should the 
statesman be loaded who. pemiitting one half the 
citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, 
transforms those into despots and these into enemies, 
destroys the morals of the one part and the amor 

10 patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country 
in this world, it must be any other in preference to 
that in which he is bom to live and labor for another : 
in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, 
contribute as far as depends on his indi\'idual en- 

15 deavors to the evanishment of the human race or 
entail his own miserable condition on the endless 
generations proceeding from him. With the morals 
of the people, their industry- is also destroyed. For 
in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself 

20 who can make another labor for him. This is so 
true that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small 
proportion are ever seen to labor. And can the 
Hberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have 
removed their only firm basis, a con\4ction in the 

25 minds of the people that these Hberties are of the 
gift of God? That they are not to be \4olated but 
with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country 
when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can 
not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature 



The Slavery Problem 

and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel 
of fortune, an exchange of situation is among pos- 
sible events : that it may become probable by super- 
natural interference! 

s The Almighty has no attributes which can take 
side with us in such a contest. But it is impossible 
to be temperate and to pursue this subject through 
the various considerations of policy, of morals, of 
history natural and civil. We must be contented 

10 to hope they will force their way into every one's 
mind. I think a change already perceptible, since 
the origin of the present revolution. The spirit of 
the master is abating, that of the slave rising from 
the dust, his condition m.ollifying, the way, I hope, 

IS preparing, under the auspices of heaven, for a total 
emancipation; and that this is disposed, in the order 
of events, to be with the consent of the masters, 
rather than by their extirpation. 
3. St. George Tucker: A Dissertation on Slavery 

20 with a Proposal for the Gradual Abolition of it 

in the State of Virginia. [1796.] 
Pages i-io. 

Among the blessings which the Almighty hath 
showered down on these states, there is a large por- 

25 tion of the bitterest draught that ever flowed from 
the cup of affliction. Whilst America hath been the 
land of promise to Europeans and their descendants, 
it hath been the vale of death to millions of the 
wretched sons of Africa. The genial Hght of Hberty, 

381 



Source Problems in United States History 

which hath here sl;one with unrivalled lustre on the 
former, hath yielded no comfort to the latter; but 
to them hath been a pillar of darkness whilst it hath 
conducted the former to the most en\-iable state of 

5 human existence. ^Miilst we were offering up vo^^'s 
at the shrine of Liberty and sacrificing hecatombs 
upon her altars; whilst we swore irreconcilable hos- 
tility to her enemies and hurled defiance in their 
faces; whilst we adjured the God of Hosts to witness 

10 our resolution to live or die, and imprecated curses 
on their heads who refused to unite \\'ith us in estab- 
Hshing the empire of freedom, we were imposing 
upon our fellow men, who differ in complexion from 
us, a slavery ten thousand times more cruel than the 

15 utmost extremity of those grievances and oppressions 
of which we complained. 

Such are the inconsistences of human nature; 
such the blindness of those who pluck not the beam 
out of their own e^^es, whilst they can espy a mote 

-0 in the eyes of their brother; such that partial sys- 
tem of morality which confines rights and .injuries 
to particular complexions; such the effect of that 
self-love which justifies or condemns, not according 
to principles, but to the agent. Had we turned our 

-^5 eyes inwardh' when we supplicated the Father of 
Mercies to aid the injured and oppressed; when we 
invoked the Author of Righteousness to attest the 
purity of our motives and the justice of our cause; 
and implored the God of battles to aid our exertions 

3S2 



The Slavery Pn^hle 



m 



in its defence, should we not have stood more self 
convicted than the conrrite publican! Should we 
not have left our pft upon the altar that we might 
first be reconciled to our brethren whom we held 
5 in bondage? Should we not have loosed their 
chains and broken their fetters? Or, if the difficul- 
ties and dangers of such an experiment prohibited 
the attempt during the convulsions of a revolution, 
is it not our duty to embrace the tirst moment of 

10 constitutional health and vigor to effectuate so de- 
sirable an object and to remove from us the stigma 
with which om* enemies will never fail to upbraid 
us, nor our consciences to reproach us!* 

To fonn a just estimate of this obligation, to 

15 demonstrate the incompatibility of a state of slavery 
with the principles of our government, and of that 
revolution upon which it is founded, and to elucidate 
the practicability of its total, though gradual, aboli- 
tion, it will be proper to consider the nature of 

20 slavery, its properties, attendants and consequences 
in general; its rise, progress and present state not 
only in this common w^ealth, but in such of our sister 
states as have either perfected or commenced the 
great work of its extirpation; with the means they 

^5 have adopted to effect it and those which the 
circumstances and situation of our country may 
render it most expedient for us to pursue, for 
the attainment of the same noble and important 
end. 

3S3 



Source Problems in United States History 

[Then follows a brief history of slavery and the slave 
trade which concludes, page 88, with a plan of gradual 
abolition similar to that which Pennsylvania had adopted.] 

4. Thomas Roderick Dew: A Review of the Debate 
5 in the Virginia Legislature, i8ji-j2. [Rich- 

mond, 1833.] In Pro-Slavery Argument. [. . . 
indicate omitted sentences and sometimes 
pages.] 
Pages 205-460. 
10 Slavery was established and sanctioned by Divine 
Authority, among even the elect of Heaven — the 
favored children of Israel. Abraham, the founder 
of this interesting nation and the chosen servant of 
the Lord, was the owner of hundreds of slaves ; that 
15 magnificent shrine, the temple of Solomon, was 
reared by the hands of slaves. Egypt's venerable 
and enduring piles were reared by similar hands. 
Slavery existed in Assyria and Babylon. The ten 
tribes of Israel were carried off in bondage to the 
20 former by Shalmanezer and the two tribes of Judah 
were subsequently carried in triumph by Nebuchad- 
nezzar to beautify and adorn the latter. ... So that, 
looking to the whole world, we may even now with 
confidence assert that slaves, or those whose con- 
25 dition is infinitely worse, form by far the largest 
portion of the human race. 

The character of government, in spite of all its 
forms, depends more on the condition of property 
than on any one circumstance beside. The relations 

384 



The Slavery Problem 

which the different classes of society bear towards 
each other, the distinction into high and low, noble 
and plebeian, in fact, depend almost exclusively 
upon the state of property. It may with truth be 
5 affirmed that the exclusive owners of property 
ever have been, ever will, and perhaps ever ought 
to be the virtual rulers of mankind. If then in any 
age or nation, there should be but one species of 
property, and that should be exclusively owned by 

lo a portion of citizens, that portion would become in- 
evitably the masters of the residue. ... A revolution 
in the state of property is always a premonitory 
symptom of a revolution in government and in the 
state of society and without the one you can not 

15 meet with permanent success in the other. The 
slave of southern Europe could never have been 
emancipated except through the agency of commerce 
and manufactures and the consequent rapid rise of 
cities, accompanied with a more regular and better 

20 protected industry. ... In the same way we shall 
show that if the slaves of our southern country shall 
ever be liberated and suffered to remain among us, 
with their present limited wants and longing desire 
for a state of idleness, they would fall inevitably, 

25 by the nature of things, into a state of slavery from 
which no government could rescue them. The state 
of property, then, may fairly be considered a very 
fruitful source of slavery. . . . 

Well, then, might we have concluded from the 

385 



Source Problems in United States History 

fact that slavery was the necessary result of the laws 
of mind and matter, that it marked some benevolent 
design and was intended by our Creator for some 
useful purpose. Let us inquire, then, what that use- 
5 ful purpose is and we have no hesitation in affirming 
that slavery has been perhaps the principal means 
for impelling forward the civilization of mankind. 
Without its agency, society must have remained 
sunk in that deplorable state of barbarism and 
lo wretchedness which characterized the inhabitants of 
the western world when discovered by Columbus. 
. . . Slavery gradually fells the forest and thereby 
destroys the haunts of wild beasts. It gives rise 
to agricultural production and thereby renders man- 
is kind less dependent on the precarious and diminish- 
ing production of the chase. It thus gradually de- 
stroys the roving and unquiet life of the savage. 
It furnishes a home and binds him down to the soil. 
It converts the idler and the wanderer into the man 
20 of business and the agriculturist. . . . 

We have now finished the first principal division 
of our subject in which we have treated of the origin 
of slavery in ancient and modern times. . . . We have 
considered it indispensably necessary to point out 
25 the true sources of slavery and the principles upon 
which it rests in order that we might appreciate fully 
the value of those arguments based upon the prin- 
ciples that all men are born equal, that slavery in 
the abstract is wrong, that the slave has a natural 

386 



The Slavery Problem 

right to regain his liberty and so forth — all of which 
doctrines were most pompously and ostentatiously 
put forth by some of the abolitionists in the Virginia 
Legislature.^ . . . We shall now proceed to the second 
s great division of our subject and inquire seriously 
and fairly whether there be any means by which 
we may get rid of slavery. 

[Here follows a strong argument to show the impos- 
sibility of abolishing slavery without deportation and 
10 that deportation, according to the so-called Malthus law 
of population, would only result in multiplying young 
negroes as fast as any southern state could afford to ship 
the freedmen away.] 

After the United States abolished the slave trade, 
15 the price of adults rose very considerably; greater 
attention was, consequently, bestowed on their chil- 
dren and now nowhere is the African female more 
prolific than she is in Louisiana, and the climate of 
no one of the southern states is supposed to be more 
20 favorable to the rearing of her offspring. For a 
similar reason the slaves in Virginia multiply more 
rapidly than in most of the southern states ; the Vir- 
ginians can raise cheaper than they can buy. In 
fact it is one of their greatest sources of profit. 
25 In many of the other slave-holding states this is not 
the case and consequently the same care is not taken 
to encourage matrimony and the rearing of children. 

^ The Virginia Legislature of 1831-32 which debated at great 
length the proposition to abolish slavery. 

-G 387 



Source Problems in United States History 

For a similar reason in ancient times few slaves 
were reared in populous districts and large towns, 
these being supplied with slaves raised at a distance 
or taken in war at a cheaper rate than they could 

s be raised. The comparison is shocking, says Hume, 
the historian, but in the capital, near all great cities, 
in all populous, rich, industrious provinces, few cattle 
are bred. Provisions, lodging, attendance, labor are 
there dear and men find their accounts better in 

10 buying the cattle after they come to a certain age 
fromx the remote and cheaper countries. [It was the 
same with human beings argued Dew.] And it is 
'thus we see everywhere that the spring of popula- 
tion accommodates itself to the demand for human 

IS beings and becomes inert or active in proportion to 
the value of the laborer and the small or great ex- 
pense of rearing him. 

[To the proposition that uncompensated abolition might 
be resorted to, Dew makes the reply, 384-86]: 

20 It is contended that property is the creature of 
civil society and is subject to action, even to de- 
struction. ... To these doctrines we call the serious 
attention of the whole slave-holding population of 
our Union. It is time indeed for Achilles to rise 

25 from his inglorious . repose and buckle on his armor 
when the enemy are about to set fire to the fleet. 
This doctrine, absurd as it may seem in the practical 
application made by the speaker, will be sure to be- 



The Slavery Problem 

come the most popular with those abolitionists in 
Virginia who have no slave property to sacrifice. 

The doctrine of these gentlemen, so far from being 
true in its application to slavery, is not true in 

5 theory. The great object of government is the pro- 
tection of property. From the days of the patri- 
archs down to the present time, the great desidera- 
tum has been to find out the most efficient mode of 
protecting property. There is not a government at 

10 this moment in Christendom whose peculiar prac- 
tical character is not the result of the state of prop- 
erty. No government can exist which does not con- 
form to the state of property; it can not make the 
latter conform entirely to the government. An at- 

15 tempt to do it would and ought to revolutionize any 
state. There is slave property of the value of 
$100,000,000 in the state of Virginia and it matters 
but little how you destroy it, whether by the slow 
process of the cautious practitioner or with the fright- 

20 ful despatch of the self-confident quack . . . . ; 
when it is gone, no matter how, the deed will be 
done and Virginia will be a desert. . . . 

It is said that slavery is wrong, in the abstract at 
least, and contrary to the spirit of Christianity. To 

25 this we answer as before, that any question must be 
determined by its circumstances, and if, as really is 
the case, we can not get rid of slavery without pro- 
ducing a greater injury to both the masters and 
slaves, there is no rule of conscience or revealed law 

389 



Source Problems in United States History 

of God which can condemn us. The physician will 
not order the spreading cancer to be extirpated, 
although it will eventually cause the death of his 
patient, because he would thereby hasten the fatal 

5 issue. So, if slavery had commenced even contrary 
to the laws of God and man, and the sin of its intro- 
duction rested on our heads, and it was even carrying 
forward the nation by slow degree to final ruin; 
yet, if it were certain that an attempt to remove it 

10 would only hasten and heighten the final catas- 
trophe — that it was in fact a vulnus immedicable on 
the body politic which no legislation could safely 
remove, then we would not only not be bound to 
attempt the extirpation, but we would stand guilty 

15 of a high offense in the sight of both God and man 
if we should rashly make the effort. But the original 
sin of introduction rests not on our heads and we 
shall soon see that all those dreadful calamities which 
the false prophets of our day are pointing to will 

20 never, in all probability, occur. With regard to the 
assertion that slavery is against the spirit of Chris- 
tianity, we are ready to admit the general assertion 
but deny most positively that there is anything in 
the Old or New Testament which would go to show 

25 that slavery, when once introduced, ought at all 
events to be abrogated or that the master commits 
any offense in holding slaves. . . . 

But it is further said that the moral effects of 
slavery are of the most deleterious and hurtful kind; 

390 



The Slavery Problem 

and as Mr. Jefferson has given the sanction of his 
great name to this charge, we shall proceed to 
examine it with all that respectful deference to 
which every sentiment of so pure and philanthropic 

s a heart is justly entitled. ''The whole commerce 
between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of 
the most boisterous passions; the unremitting des- 
potism on the one part and degrading submission 
on the other" [and so on as given above in Jeffer- 

10 son's opinion of slavery]. 

Now we boldly assert that the fact does not bear 
Mr. Jefferson out in his conclusions. . . . But is not 
his master sometimes kind and indulgent to his 
slaves? Does he not mete out to them, for faithful 

IS service, the reward of his cordial approbation? Is 
it not his interest to do it? And when thus acting 
humanely and speaking kindly where is the child, 
the creature of imitation, that he does not look on 
and learn? . . . Instead of being reared a selfish and 

20 contracted being, with naught but self to look to, 
he acquires a more exalted benevolence, a greater 
generosity and elevation of soul and embraces for 
the sphere of his generous actions a much wider 
field. Look to the slave-holding population of our 

25 country and you everywhere find them characterized 
by noble and elevated sentiments, by humane and 
virtuous feelings. We do not find among them that 
cold, contracted, calculating selfishness which withers 
and repels everything around it and lessens or de- 

391 



Source Problems in United States History 

stroys all the multiplied enjoyments of social inter- 
course. . . . 

Is it not a fact, known to every man in the South, 
that the most cruel masters are those who have been 
s unaccustomed to slavery. It is well known that 
northern gentlemen who marry southern heiresses 
are much severer masters than southern gentlemen. 
And yet if Mr. Jefferson's reasoning were corre'ct, 
they ought to be milder. In fact it follows from his 

10 reasoning that the authority which the father is 
called on to exercise over his children must be seri- 
ously detrimental ; and yet we know that this is not 
the case. . . . There may be cruel masters and there 
are cruel and unkind fathers, too, but both the one 

IS and the other make all those around them shudder 
with horror. 

Let us now look a moment to the slave and con- 
template his position. Mr. Jefferson has described 
him as hating rather than loving his master and as 

20 losing, too, all that amor patriae which characterizes 
the true patriot. We assert again that Mr. Jeffer- 
son is not borne out by the fact. We are well con- 
vinced that there is nothing but the mere relations 
of husband and wife, parent and child, brother and 

25 sister, which produce a closer tie than the relation 
of master and servant. We have no hesitation in 
affirming that throughout the whole slave-holding 
country the slaves of a good master are his warmest, 
most constant and most devoted friends ; they have 

392 



The Slavery Problem 

been accustomed to look up to him as their supporter, 
director and defender. 

In the debate in the Virginia Legislature ^ no 
speaker insinuated even, we believe, that the slaves 
5 in Virginia were treated unkindly; and all, too, agree 
that they are most abundantly fed; and we have 
no doubt that they form the happiest portion of our 
society. A merrier being does not exist on the face 
of the globe than the negro slave of the United 

10 States. Even Captain Hall himself, with his thick 
crust of prejudice, is obliged to allow that they are 
happy and contented and the master is much less 
cruel than is generally imagined. Why then, since 
the slave is happy and happiness is the great object 

15 of all animated creation, should we endeavor to dis- 
turb his contentment by infusing into his mind a 
vain and indefinite desire for liberty — a something 
which he can not comprehend and which must in- 
evitably dry up the very sources of his happiness. . . . 

20 Let the wily philanthropist but come and whisper 
into the ears of such a slave that his situation is de- 
grading and his lot a miserable one; let him but 
light up the dungeon in which he persuades the 
slave that he is caged, and that moment, like the 

25 serpent that entered the garden of Eden, he destroys 
his happiness and his usefulness. We can not, there- 
fore, agree with Mr. Jefferson in the opinion that 
slavery makes the unfeeling tyrant and ungrateful 

1 In the debate of 1831-32, already mentioned, 
393 



Source Problems in United States History 

dependent. And in regard to Virginia especially, 
we are almost disposed, judging from the official 
returns of crimes and convictions, to assert, with a 
statesman who has descended to his tomb,^ that the 
whole population of Virginia, consisting of three 
castes of free white, free colored and slave colored 
population, is the soundest and the most moral of 
any other, according to numbers, in the whole world. 
5. The Life and Speeches of Henry Clay, Vol. II. 
[The clearest statement of the opinions of Clay 
on the subject of slavery that has been found.] 

Pages 40S, 410. 

Why are the slave States wantonly and cruelly 
assailed?* Why do the abolition presses teem with 
publications tending to excite hatred and animosity 
on the part of the inhabitants of the free States 
against those of the slave States ? Why is Congress 
petitioned ? The free States have no more power or 
right to interfere with institutions in the slave 
States, confined to the exclusive jurisdiction of 
those States, than they would have to interfere with 
institutions existing in any foreign country. . . . 
What would be thought of the fonnation of societies 
in the slave States, the issuing of violent and in- 
flammatory tracts, and the deputation of mission- 
aries, pouring out impassioned denunciations against 
institutions under the exclusive control of the free 
States? Is their purpose to appeal to our under- 

i William B. Giles. 
394 



The Slavery Problem 

standings, and to actuate our humanity? And do 
they expect to accomplish that purpose by holding 
us up to the scorn and contempt and detestation of 
the people of the free States, and the whole civilized 

s world? The slavery which exists among us is our 
affair not theirs; and they have no more just concern 
with it than they have with slavery throughout the 
world. Why not leave it to us, as the common con- 
stitution of our country has left it, to be dpalt wdth, 

10 under the guidance of Providence, as best we may 
or can? 

The next obstacle in the way of abolition arises 
out of the fact of the presence in the slave States 
of three millions of slaves. They are there, dispersed 

IS throughout the land, part and parcel of our popula- 
tion. The}^ were brought into the country originally 
under the authority of the parent government whilst 
we were colonies and their importation was con- 
tinued in spite of all the remonstrances of our 

20 ancestors. . . . The slaves are here; no practical 
scheme for their removal or separation from us has 
been yet devised or proposed; and the true inquiry 
is, what is best to be done with them. In human 
affairs we are often constrained, by the force of cir- 

25 cumstances and the actual state of things, to do 
what we would not do if that state of things did not 
exist. The slaves are here, and here they must re- 
main, in some condition; and, I repeat, how are they 
to be best governed? What is best to be done for 

395 



; 



Source Problems in United States History 



their happiness and our own? In the slave States 
the alternative is that the white man must govern 
the black, or the black govern the white. ... An im- 
mediate abolition of slavery, as these ultra abolition- 

s ists propose, would be followed by a desperate strug- 
gle for immediate ascendency of the black race 
over the white race, or rather it would be followed 
by instantaneous collisions between the two races, 
which wQuld break out into a civil war that would 

10 end in the extermination or subjugation of the one 
race or the other. In such an alternative, who can 
hesitate? Is it not better for both parties that the 
existing state of things should be preserved instead 
of exposing them to the horrible strifes and contests 

15 which would inevitably attend an immediate aboli- 
tion? This is our true ground of defence for the 
continued existence of slavery in our country. It 
is that w^hich our revolutionary ancestors assumed. 
It is that which, in my opinion, forms our justifica- 

20 tion in the eyes of all Christendom. . . . 

A third impediment to the immediate abolition 
is to be found in the immense amount of capital 
which is invested in slave property. The total num- 
ber of slaves in the United States, according to the 

25 last enumeration of the population, was a little up- 
wards of two millions. Assuming their increase at 
a ratio of five per cent, per annum, their present 
number would be three millions. Estimating slaves 
at $400 each their total value is, then, twelve hun- 

396 



The Slavery Problem 

dred millions of dollars. This property is diffused 
throughout all classes and conditions of society. 
It is owned by widows and orphans, by the 
aged and infirm as well as by the sound and vigor- 
5 ous. It is the subject of mortgages, deeds of trust 
and family settlements. . . . And now it is 
rashly proposed, by a single fiat of legislation, to 
annihilate this immense amount of property! To 
annihilate it without indemnity and without com- 

10 pensation to its owners ! Does any considerate man 
believe it to be possible to effect such an object 
without convulsion, revolution and bloodshed? 
6. The Works of William E. Channing, Vol. V. 
Pages 1 6-6 1. 

IS I claim the right of pleading the cause of the op- 
pressed, whether he suffer in this country or another. 
I utterly deny that a people can screen themselves 
behind their nationality from the moral judgment 
of the world. Because they form themselves into 

20 a state, and forbid within their bounds a single voice 
to rise in behalf of the injured; because they crush 
the weak under the forms of law, do they thereby 
put a seal on the lips of foreigners? Do they dis- 
arm the moral sentiment of other states? Is this 

25 among the rights of sovereignty, that a people, how- 
ever criminal, shall stand unreproved? 

In consequence of the increasing intercourse and 
intelligence of modern times, there is now erected 
in the civilized world, a grand moral tribunal before 

397 



Source Problems in United States History 

which all communities stand and must be judged. 
. . . Before this, slave-holding communities are ar- 
raigned and must answer. The friends of justice, 
Hberty and humanity accuse them of grievous 

5 wTongs. It is vain to talk of the prescription of two 
hundred years. "Within this space of time great 
changes have taken place in the code by which the 
commonwealth of nations passes sentence. The 
doctrine of human rights has been expounded. The 

10 right of the laborer to wages, the right of every 
innocent man to his own person, the right of all to 
equity before the laws, these are no longer abstrac- 
tions of speculative \4sionaries, no longer innova- 
tions, but the established rights of humanity. Before 

15 the tribunal of the civilized world, and the higher 
tribunal of Christianity and of God, the slave-holder 
has to answer for stripping his brother of these 
recognized privileges and immunities of a man. 
jMultitudes, on both sides of the ocean, looking above 

20 the distinction of nations, standing on the broad 
ground of a common nature, protest in the face of 
heaven and earth against the \\Tong inflicted on 
their enslaved brother. Let the South understand 
that it is not 3"our voice or mine, or that of a small 

25 knot of enthusiasts, which they have to silence. You 
and I are nothing, but as we represent those great 
principles of justice and charity with which the human 
heart is everywhere beginning to beat. Everywhere 
the slave-holder is accused ; everywhere he is judged. 

398 



The Slavery Problem 

... A few individuals, given to a bad course, 
might be overlooked for their insignificance. But 
when a community, openly, by statutes, by arms, 
adopts and upholds an enormous wrong, then good 

5 men, through the earth, are bound to unite against 
it in stem, solemn remonstrance. The greater the 
force combined to support an evil, the greater the 
force needed for its subversion. Crime is compara- 
tively weak until it embodies and "sanctifies" itself 

10 in institutions. Individuals, seizing on and enslav- 
ing their brethren, would be put down by the spon- 
taneous, immediate reprobation of society. It is 
the perpetration of this wrong by communities which 
makes it formidable; and, I confess, that here, if 

IS anywhere, a justification may be found for organized 
associations against slavery. This evil rests on as- 
sociated strength, on the prostitution of the powers 
of the state. ... I feel that slavery, entrenched be- 
hind institutions, is, on that very account, to be 

20 assailed with all the weapons of reason, of moral 
suasion, of moral reprobation, which good men can 
wield. Less mercy should be shown it because it 
is an institution. 

... I have now considered one important relation 

25 of the Free States to slavery. I now proceed to 

another. The constitution requires the Free States 

to send back to bondage the fugitive slave. Does 

this show that we have no concern with the domestic 

399 



Source Problems in United States History 

institutions of the South? That the guilt of them, 
if such there be, is wholly theirs and in no degree 
ours? This clause makes us direct partakers of the 
guilt; and, of consequence, we have a vital interest 

s in the matter of slavery. I know no provision of 
the constitution at which my moral feelings revolt, 
but this. Has not the slave the right to flee from 
bondage ? Who among us doubts it ? Let any man 
ask himself how he should construe his rights, were 

10 he made a slave ; and does he not receive an answer 
from his own moral nature, as bright, immediate, 
and resistless as lightning? And yet we of the Free 
States stop the flying slave and give him back to 
bondage ! It does not satisfy me to be told that this 

15 is a part of that sacred instrument, the constitution, 
which all are solemnly bound to uphold. No charter 
of man's writing can sanctify injustice or repeal 
God's eternal law. I cannot escape the conviction 
that every man who aids the restoration of the 

20 flying slave is a wrong-doer, though this is done by 
our best and wisest men with no self reproach. . . . 
The slave goes back not merely to toil and sweat for 
his master as before. He goes to be lacerated for 
the offense of flying from oppression. For hardly 

2s any crime is the slave so scored and scarred as for 
running away; and for every lash that enters his 
flesh, we of the Free States, who have given him 
back, must answer. 

I know perfectly well how these views will be re- 
400 



The Slavery Problem 

ceived at the North and South. Some will call me 
a visionary while others will fix on me a harder name. 
But I look above scoffers and denouncers to that 
pure, serene, almighty Justice which is enthroned 
5 in Heaven and inquire of God, the Father of us all, 
whether he approves the surrender of the flying slave. 
I shall be charged with irreverence toward the 
fathers of the Revolution, the framers of our glorious 
national charter. But I reply that, great as they 

10 were, they were fallible and that the progress of 
opinion since their day seems to me to have convicted 
them of error in the matter now in hand. ... If I 
am right, the truth which I speak, however ques- 
tioned now, will not have been spoken in vain. To- 

is day is not Forever. The men who now scorn or con- 
demn are not to live forever. Let a few years pass 
and we shall all have vanished and other actors will 
fill the stage and the despised and neglected truths 
of this generation will become the honored ones of 

20 the next. . . . 

It is vain to say that the slave suffers less than 
other laborers. We have no right to inflict a suffer- 
ing, greater or less, on an innocent fellow-creature. 
Injustice is injustice, be the extent of its influence 

25 ever so confined. Were one of our governments, by 
an act of usurpation, to abridge the free motions 
and the rights of the laboring class, would it be a 
mitigation of the wrong that the laborer still ex- 
ceeded in privileges and means of pleasure the serfs 

401 



Source Problems in United States History 

of Russia ? It is no excuse for keeping a man in the 
dust that you throw him better food than he can 
earn by his free industry. Be just before you are 
generous. The lenity which quiets you in wrong- 
5 doing becomes a crime. Do not boast of your 
humanity to those whom you own when it is a 
cruel wrong to be their owner. Some highwaymen 
have taken pride in the gentlemanly, courteous style 
in which they have eased the traveller of his purse. 

10 They have given him back a part of the spoils that he 
might travel comfortably home. But they were rob- 
bers still. A criminal relation can not be made 
virtuous by the mode of sustaining it. Caesar was 
a clement dictator but usurpation did not, there- 

15 fore, cease to be a vice. 

It is no excuse for taking possession of a man 
that we can make him happier. We are poor 
judges of another's happiness. He was made to 
work it out for himself. Our opinion of his best 

20 interests is particularly to be distrusted when our 
own interest is to be advanced by making him our 
tool. Especially if, to make him happy, we must 
drive him as a brute, subject him to the lash, it is 
plainly time to give up our philanthropic efforts and 

25 let him seek his good in his own way. . . . Pain as 
pain is nothing compared with pain when it is wrong. 
A blow given me by accident may fell me to the 
earth; but after all it is a trifle. A slight blow, in- 
flicted in scorn or with injurious intent, is an evil 

40? • 



The Slavery Problem 

which, without aid from my principles, I could not 
bear. Let God's providence confine me to my 
room by disease and I more than submit, for in his 
dispensations I see parental goodness seeking my 
5 purity and peace. But let man imprison me, with- 
out inflicting disease, and how intolerable my nar- 
row bounds. . . . Anything can be borne but the 
will and power of the selfish, unrighteous man. 
It will be said that the slave has nothing of this 

10 consciousness of his wrongs which adds such weight 
to his sufferings. He has no self-respect, we hear, 
to be wounded when he is lashed. To him, as to 
the ox, a blow is but a blow. And is this an apology 
for slavery, that it destroys all sense of wrongs, 

15 blunts the common sensibilities of human nature, 
makes man tamer than the nobler animals under 
inflicted pain ? But it is not true that the spirit of 
man is wholly killed in the slave. The moral nature 
never dies. He often feels a wrong in the violence 

2o which he can not resist. He has often bitter hatred 
towards the cruel overseer. He ponders in secret 
over his oppressed lot. There are deep groans of 
conscious injury and revenge, which, though smoth- 
ered by fear, do not less agonize the soul. 

25 ... Still, I do not charge cruelty on slavery as its 
worst evil. The great evil is the contempt and 
violation of human rights, the injustice which treats 
man as a brute and which breaks his spirit to make 
him a tool. It is the injustice which denies hirn 

403 



/ 

/ 

Source Problems in United States History 

the means of improvement, which denies him scope 
for his powers, which dooms him to an unchange- 
able lot, which robs him of the primitive rights of 
human nature, that of bettering his outward and 

5 inward state. It is the injustice which converts his 
social connections into a curse. Here, perhaps, is 
the influence of slavery most blighting. Our social 
connections are intended by God to be among our 
chief means of improvement and happiness; and a 

10 system which wars with these is the most cruel out- 
rage on our nature. Other men's chief relations are 
to wife and children, to brother and sister, to beings 
endeared by nature and who awaken the heart to 
tenderness and faithful love. The slave's chief re- 

15 lation is to his owner, to the man who wrongs him. 
This it is which, above all things; determines his 
lot and this infuses poison into all his other social 
connections. This destroys the foundation of do- 
mestic happiness by sullying female purity, by ex- 

20 tinguishing in woman the sense of honor. This 
violates the sanctity of the marriage bond. This 
tears the wife from the husband or condemns her 
to insult, perhaps, laceration in his sight. This 
takes from the parent his children. His children 

25 belong to another and are disposed of for another's 
gain. Thus, God's great provisions for softening, 
refining, elevating human nature are thwarted. 
Thus social ties are liable to be turned into bitter- 
ness and wrong. . . . 

404 



The Slavery Problem 

I have thus attempted to show that there is 
nothing in the mitigating circumstances of slavery 
to diminish the reprobation with which it is regarded 
by the civilized world; and nothing to justify the 
s charge brought against its opposers, of unwarrant- 
able interference. Having finished this part of my 
task, I shall now pass to those portions of Mr. Clay's 
speech ^ in which he meets the arguments against 
slavery by attempting to show that emancipation 

10 is impossible. . . . Mr. Clay maintains that the 
total value of the slave property in the United States 
is twelve hundred millions of dollars and considers 
this immense amount as putting the freedom of the 
slave out of the question. Who can be expected to 

15 make such a sacrifice? The accuracy of this valua- 
tion of the slaves I have nothing to do with. I ad- 
mit it without dispute. But the impression made 
on my mind by the vastness of the sum is directly 
the reverse of the effect on Mr. Clay. Regarding 

20 slavery as throughout a wrong, I see in the immense- 
ness of the value of the slaves the enormous amount 
of the robbery committed on them. I see twelve 
hundred millions of dollars seized, extorted by un- 
righteous force. I know not on the face of the 

25 earth a system of such enormous spoliation. I know 
nowhere injustice on such a giant scale. And yet 
the vast amount of this wrong is, in the view of 
many, a reason for its continuance ! 

1 As quoted above, p. 396. 

405 / 



Source Problems in United States History 

If I strip my neighbor of a few dollars, I ought to 
restore them; but if I have spoiled him of his all 
and grown rich on the spoils, I must not be expected 
to make restitution! Justice, when it will cost 

5 much, loses its binding power. What makes the 
present case more startling is that this vast amount 
of property consists not of the goods of injured men 
but of the men themselves. . . . Sad and strange that 
a distinguished man, in the face of a great people 

10 and of the world, should talk with entire indifference 
of fellow-creatures, held and labelled as property to 
this immense amount. But this property is not to 
be questioned, for it has been held and sanctified by 
two hundred years of legislation. ... 

IS Is injustice changed into justice by the practice 
of the ages? Is my victim made a righteous prey 
because I have bowed him to the earth till he can 
not rise ? For more than two hundred years, heretics 
were burned, and not by mobs, not by Lynch law, 

20 but by the decrees of councils, at the instigation 
of theologians and with the sanction of the laws 
and religiojis of nations; and was this a reason for 
keeping up the fires, that they had burned two hun- 
dred years? 

25 It is said that this property must not be questioned 
because it is established by law. ''That is property 
which the law declares to be property," says Mr. 
Clay. Thus human law is made supreme, decisive 
in great questions of morals, and the idea of an 

406 



The Slavery Problem 

eternal, immutable justice is set at naught. , . . 
"That is property which the law declares to be 
property." Then the laws have only to declare 
you, or me or Mr. Clay to be property and we be- 

5 come chattels and are bound to bear the yoke! 

I always hear with pain the doctrine, too common 
among lawyers, that property is the creature of the 
law; as if it had no natural foundation, as if it were 
not a natural right, as if it did not precede all laws 

10 and were not their ground, instead of being their 
effect. . . . Mr. Clay insists that the slave-holder has 
a right to full compensation from those who call 
on him to surrender his slaves. I utterly deny such 
a right in a man who surrenders what is not his 

15 own. . . . One would think indeed, from the common 
language on the subject, that the negroes were to 
be annihilated by being set free; that the whole 
labor of the South was to be destroyed by a single 
blow. But the colored man when freed will not 

20 vanish from the soil. He will stand there with the 
same muscles as before, only strung anew by liberty ; 
with the same limbs to toil and with stronger mo- 
tives to toil than before. . . . For what mighty loss, 
then, does the slave-holder need compensation? . . . 

25 The slave-holder in relinquishing what is another's 
will add a new value to what is unquestionably his 
own; worn-out soils will be renewed and the whole 
country assume a brighter aspect under free 
labor. . . i 

407 



Source Problems in United States History 

The next objection to emancipation is that it will 
produce an amalgamation of the white and colored 
races. This objection is a strange one from a resi- 
dent of the South. . . . Slavery tends directly to 
5 intermingle the races. It robs the colored female of 
protection against licentiousness. Still worse it robs 
her of self-respect. It dooms her class to prostitu- 
tion. Nothing but freedom can give her the feel- 
ings of a woman and can shield her from brutal lust. 

10 Slavery . . . makes her a stranger to the deli- 
cacy of her sex. As far as marriage is concerned, 
there seems to be a natural repugnance between the 
races. And there is another security against amal- 
gamation. I refer to the mark which has been set 

15 upon the colored race by their past slavery, a mark 
which generations will not efface and in which the 
whites will have no desire to participate. . . . 
The spirit of caste which almost seems the strongest 
in human nature will certainly postpone amalgama- 

20 tion long enough to give the world opportunity to 
understand and manage the subject much better 
than ourselves. To continue a system of wrong 
from dread of such evils only shows the ingenuity 
of power in defending itself. 

25 ... We are told, finally, that it will stir up 
the two races to a war which nothing but the slavery 
or extermination of one or the other will end. We 
have often heard of the ''fears of the brave" so that 
we ought not perhaps to wonder at the alarm here 

408 



The Slavery Problem 

expressed. And yet we are somewhat surprised 
that "the chivalry of the South" should see in the 
colored man a formidable foe and should be willing 
to put forth their fears as a defense of their injus- 
5 tice. . . . Were they a fierce, savage, indomitable 
race they might be looked on with apprehension; 
but they are the most inoffensive people on earth; 
and their mildness has undoubtedly perpetuated 
their chains. With emancipation their present rapid 

10 increase will be checked, for the motive to breed 
them will cease. . . . Can we conceive of a country 
which has so little to dread from emancipation as 
this, reaching, as it does from ocean to ocean, and 
destined to receive increasing accessions to its num- 

15 bers from the Old World? . . . But suppose we allow 
emancipation to be dangerous. Will it be safer 
hereafter than at the present moment? Will it be 
safer when the slaves shall have doubled, trebled or 
still more increased? And must it not at length 

20 come? Can any man who considers the chances of 
war and the direction which opinion is taking in the 
civilized world believe that slavery is to be perpetual ? 
Is it wise to wink out of sight a continually increasing 
peril ? 

25 7. The Works of John C. Calhoun, edited by Richard 
K. Cralle, Vol. VI. [An argument against the 
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.] 
Pages 253-254, 307-311. 

Nor can I give my support to any candidate who 
409 



Source Problems in United States History 

shall give his aid or countenance to the agitation 
of abolition in Congress or elsewhere: or whose 
prominent and influential friends and supporters 
shall. I doubt the sincerity of any man who de- 

5 clares he is no abolitionist whilst, at the same time, 
he aids or countenances the agitation of the question, 
be his pretext what it may. If we have a right to 
our slaves we have the right to hold them in peace 
and quiet. If the Constitution guarantees the one, 

10 it guarantees the other; and if it forbids the one 
from being attacked, it equally forbids the other. 
Indeed, the one stands to the other as means to an 
end, and is so avowed by the abolitionists. ... It 
is time that an end should be put to this system of 

IS plunder and agitation. . . . While the tariff takes 
from us the proceeds of our labor, abolition strikes 
at the labor itself. The one robs us of our income 
while the other aims at destroying the source from 
which that income is derived. . . . 

20 The probability is that general emancipation would 
follow the abolition of slavery in the District of 
Columbia. The depressing effects of such measures 
on the white race at the South and the hope that 
they would create in the black of a speedy emanci- 

25 pation would produce a state of feeling inconsistent 
with the much longer continuance of the existing 
relations between the two. But be that as it may, 
it is certain, if emancipation did not follow as a 
matter of course, the final act in the States would 

410 



The Slavery Problem 

not be long delayed. The want of constitutional 
power would oppose a feeble resistance. The great 
body of the North is united against our peculiar 
institution. Many believe it to be sinful and the 

s residue, with inconsiderable exceptions, believe it to 
be wrong. Such being the case, it would indicate 
a very superficial knowledge of human nature to 
think, after aiming at abolition, systematically, 
for so many years and pursuing it with such un- 

10 scrupulous disregard of law and Constitution, that 
the fanatics who have led the way and forced the 
great body of the North to follow them would, when 
the finishing stroke only remained to be given, 
voluntarily suspend it or permit any constitutional 

IS scruples or considerations of justice to arrest it. To 
these may be added [the plan], though not yet com- 
menced, long meditated and threatened : to prohibit 
what the abolitionists call the internal slave trade, 
meaning thereby the transfer of slaves from one 

20 state to another, from whatever motive done or 
however effected. Their object would be to render 
them worthless by crowding them together where 
they are and thus hasten the work of emancipation. 
There is reason for believing that it will soon follow 

25 those now in progress unless, indeed, some decisive 
steps should be taken in the mean time to arrest 
the whole. Will these measures of aggression al- 
ready proposed in the House of Representatives be 
adopted? . . . 

411 



Source Problems in United States History 

How shall we meet the issue? It is for you to 
decide and it would be to insult you to suppose that 
you could hesitate. To destroy the existing rela- 
tions between the free and servile races at the South 

5 would lead to consequences unparalleled in history. 
They can not be separated and can not live together 
in harmony or to their mutual advantage except in 
their present relation. Under any other, wretched- 
ness and misery and desolation would overspread the 

10 South. The example of the British West Indies, as 
blighting as emancipation has proved to them, 
furnishes a very faint picture of the calamities it 
would bring on the South. The circumstances under 
which it would take place with us would be entirely 

15 different from those which took place with them and 
calculated to lead to far more disastrous results. 
There the Government was pursuing a definite policy 
and was not moved by fanaticism, ... it was 
disposed to be just to the owners of slaves and 

20 it appropriated, accordingly, nearly $100,000,000 as 
a compensation for the losses of the master. Since 
emancipation, it has kept up a sufficient military 
and naval force to keep the blacks in awe. But 
notwithstanding all this the British West India 

25 possessions are ruined, impoverished, miserable, 
wretched and destined probably to be abandoned to 
the black race. 

Very different would be the circumstances under 
which emancipation would take place with us. If 

412 



The Slavery Problem 

it ever should be effected, it would be through the 
agency of the Federal Government controlled by the 
dominant power of the Northern States of the Con- 
federacy against the resistance and struggle of the 

5 Southern. It can then only be effected by the pros- 
tration of the white race ; and that would necessarily 
engender the bitterest feelings of hostility between 
them and the North. But the reverse would be the 
case between the blacks of the South and the people 

10 of the North. Owing their emancipation to them, 
they would regard them as friends, guardians and 
patrons and centre accordingly all their sympathy 
in them.. The people of the North would not fail 
to reciprocate and to favor them instead of the 

IS whites. Under the influence of such feelings and 
impelled by fanaticism and love of power,' they would 
not stop at emancipation. Another 3tep would be 
taken — to raise them to a political and social equality 
with their former owners, by giving them the right 

20 of voting and holding public offices under the Federal 
Government. We see the first step toward it in 
the bill already alluded to — to vest the free blacks 
and slaves with the right to vote on the question 
of emancipation in the District of Columbia. 

25 But when once raised to an equality, they would 
become the fast political associates of the North, 
acting and voting with them on all questions and, 
by this political union between them, holding the 
white race at the South in complete subjection. 

413 



Source Problems in United States History 

The blacks and the profligate whites that might unite 
with them would become the principal recipients of 
Federal offices and patronage and would, in con- 
sequence, be raised above the whites of the South 

5 in the political and social scale. We would in a 
word change conditions with them — a, degradation 
greater than has yet fallen to the lot of a free and 
enlightened people and one from which we could 
not escape, should emancipation take place (which 

10 it certainly will if not prevented), but by fleeing the 
homes of ourselves and ancestors and by abandoning 
our country to our former slaves to become the per- 
manent abode of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery 
and wretchedness. 

15 8. A Memoir on Slavery, by William Harper. 
Pages 14-80. 

It belongs to the being of superior faculties to 
judge of the relations which shall subsist between 
himself and inferior animals and the use he shall 

20 make of them; and he may justly consider himself, 
who has the greater capacity for enjoyment, in the 
first instance. Yet he must do this conscientiously 
and, no doubt, moral guilt has been incurred by the 
infliction of pain on these animals, with no adequate 

25 benefit to be expected. I do no disparagement to 
the dignity of human nature, even in its humblest 
form, when I say that on the very same foundation, 
with the difference only of circumstance and degree, 
rests the right of the civilized and cultivated man 

414 



The Slavery Problem 

over the savage and ignorant. It is the order of 
nature and of God that the being of superior faculties 
and knowledge, and therefore of superior power, 
should control and dispose of those who are inferior. 

5 It is as much in the order of nature that men should 
enslave each other as that other animals should prey 
upon each other. I admit that he does this under 
the highest moral responsibility and is most guilty 
if he wantonly inflicts misery or privation on beings 

10 more capable of enjoyment or suffering than brutes 
without necessity or any view to the greater good 
which is to result. . . . 

Property — the accumulation of capital, as it is 
commonly called — is the first element of civilization. 

15 But to accumulate or to use capital to any consider- 
able extent, the combination of labor is necessary. 
In early stages of society, when people are thinly 
scattered over an extensive territory, the labor neces- 
sary to extensive works can not be commanded. 

20 Men are independent of each other. [When] land 
is abundant, no one can employ more capital than 
he can use with his own hands or those of his own 
family, nor have an income beyond the necessaries 
of life. There can, therefore, be little leisure for 

25 intellectual pursuits or means of acquiring the com- 
forts or elegancies of life. It is hardly necessary, 
however, to say that if a man has the command of 
slaves, he may combine labor and use capital to 
any required extent and therefore accumulate 

415 



Source Problems in United States History 

wealth. ... It is only in the slave-holding States of 
our Confederacy that wealth can be acquired by 
agriculture, which is the general employment of our 
whole country. Among us we know that there is no 
s one, however humble in his beginnings, who with 
persevering industry, intelligence, orderly and virt- 
uous habits may not attain to considerable opulence. 
So far as wealth has been accumulated in the States 
which do not possess slaves, it has been in the cities 
10 by the pursuits of commerce or lately by manufact- 
ures. But the products of slave labor furnish more 
than two-thirds of the materials of our commerce 
which the industry of those States is employed in 
transporting and exchanging; and among the slave- 
is holding States is to be found the greater market 
for all the productions of their industry of whatever 
kind. The prosperity of those States, therefore, and 
the civilization of their cities have been for the most 
part created by the existence of slavery. . . . 
20 Mutation and progress is the condition of human 
affairs. Though retarded for a time by extraneous 
or accidental circumstances, the wheel must go on. 
The tendency of population is to become crowded, 
^ increasing the difficulty of obtaining subsistence. 
' 25 There will be some without any property except the 
capacity for labor. They must sell to those who 
have the means of employing them, thereby swelling 
the amount of capital and increasing inequality. 
. . . The number of laborers increases until there 

416 



The Slavery Problem 

is a difficulty in obtaining employment. The 
remuneration of labor becomes gradually less and 
less; a larger and larger proportion of the product 
of labor goes to swell the fortunes of the capitalist; 
5 inequality becomes still greater and more invidious 
until the process ends in just such a state of things 
as we see in England to-day. . . . The laboring class 
compose the bulk of the people . . . [whose] common 
lot is poverty, ignorance, wretchedness, vice, drunk- 

10 enness and crime. . . . The details of this inequal- 
ity and wretchedness sickens and appals, while the 
picture of the greatness of England, her abound- 
ing wealth, all-pervading industry, her art, learning, 
luxuries and benevolence imposes on the imagina- 

15 tion. Yet where so much misery exists, there must 
be discontent and ill-judged legislation is sure to 
follow. . . . 

[But] this inequality, this vice, this misery, this 
slavery is the price of England's greatness. But 

20 with us the existence of African slavery will retard 
the evils of civilization. ... It is the intense com- 
petition of civilized life that gives rise to the cheap- 
ness of labor and the excessive cheapness of labor 
is the cause of the evils in question. Slave labor 

25 can never be so cheap as what is called free labor. 
Political economists have established as the natural 
standard of wages in a fully peopled country the 
value of the laborer's existence. I shall not stop to 
inquire into the precise truth of this proposition. 

417 



Source Problems in United States History 

It certainly approximates the truth. Where com- 
petition is intense men will labor for a bare sub- 
sistence and less than a competent subsistence. The 
employer of free laborers obtains their services during 

5 the time of their health and vigor without the charge 
of rearing them from infancy or supporting them in 
sickness or old age. This charge is imposed on the 
employer of slave labor who, therefore, pays higher 
wages and cuts off the principal source of misery — 

10 the wants and sufferings of infancy, sickness and 
old age. Laborers, too, will be less skilful and per- 
form less work — enhancing the price of that sort 
of labor. The poor laws of England are an attempt — 
but an awkward attempt — to supply the place of 

IS that which we should suppose the feelings of every 
human heart would declare to be a natural obliga- 
tion — that he who has received the benefits of the 
laborer's services during his health and vigor should 
maintain him when he becomes unable to provide 

20 for his own support. 

In periods of commercial revulsion and distress, 
the distress in countries of free labor falls principally 
on the laborers. In those of slave labor it falls al- 
most exclusively on the employer. In the former, 

25 when a business becomes unprofitable, the employer 
dismisses his laborers or lowers their wages. But 
with us, it is the very period at which we are least 
able to dismiss our laborers; and if we would not 
suffer a further loss, we can not reduce their wages. 

418 



The Slavery Problem 

To receive the benefit of the services of which they 
are capable we must provide for maintaining their 
health and vigor. . . . 

Servitude is the condition of civilization. It was 

5 decreed when the command was given, "be fruitful 
and multiply and replenish the earth and subdue 
it" and when it was added "in the sweat of thy face 
shalt thou eat bread." And what human being 
shall arrogate to himself the authority to pronounce 

10 that our form of it is worse in itself, or more dis- 
pleasing to God, than that which exists elsewhere? 
Slavery was forced upon us by the extremest exi- 
gency of circumstances in a struggle for very exist- 
ence. Without it, it is doubtful whether a white 

15 man would be now existing on this continent — cer- 
tain that, if there were, they would be in a state 
of the utmost destitution, weakness and misery. 
I neither deprecate nor resent the gift of slavery. 
The Africans brought to us had been slaves in their 

20 own country and only underwent a change of mas- 
ters. That there are great evils in a society where 
slavery exists and that the institution is liable to 
great abuse I have already said. But the whole of 
human life is a system of evils and compensations. 

25 The free laborer has few real guarantees from so- 
ciety, while security is one of the compensations of 
the slave's humble position. There have been fewer 
murders of slaves than of parents, children and ap- 
prentices in society where slavery does not exist. 

^8 419 



Source Problems in United States History 

The slave offers no temptation to the murderer, 
nor does he really suffer injury from his master. 
Who but a drivelling fanatic has thought of the neces- 
sity of protecting domestic animals from the cruelty 
5 of their owners ? 

... It is true that the slave is driven to labor by 
stripes; and if the object of punishment be to pro- 
duce obedience or reformation with the least per- 
manent injury, it is the best method of punishment. 

10 Men claim that this is intolerable. It is not degrad- 
ing to a slave, nor is it felt to be so. Is it degrading 
to a child? Odium has been cast upon our legisla- 
tion on account of its forbidding the elements of 
education to be communicated to slaves. But in 

15 truth what injury has been done them by this? 
He who works during the day with his hands does 
not read in intervals of leisure for his amusement or 
the improvement of his mind — or the exception is 
so rare as scarcely to need the being provided for. 

20 If there were any chance of elevating their rank, 
the denial of the rudiments of education might be 
a matter of hardship. But this they know can not 
be and that further attainments would be useless 
to them. ... 

25 It has been said that marriage does not exist 
among our slaves. But we know that marriages 
among slaves are solemnized; but the law does not 
make them indissoluble, nor could it do so. It 
may perhaps be meant that the chastity of wives 

420 



The Slavery Problem 

is not protected by law from the outrages of violence. 
I answer, as with respect to their lives, that they 
are protected by manners and their position. Who 
ever heard of such outrages being offered? At least 
5 as seldom, I will venture to say, as in other communi- 
ties of different forms of polity. One reason doubt- 
less may be that often there is no disposition to re- 
sist. Another reason also may be that there is 
little temptation to such violence as there is so large 

10 a proportion of this class of females who set little 
value on chastity and afford easy gratification to 
the hot passions of men. Some suppose that a slave- 
holding country is one wide stew for the indulgence 
of unbridled lust, and there are particular instances 

15 of brutal and shameless debauches in every country. 
It is even true that in this respect the morals of this 
class [slave women] are very loose and that the 
passions of men of the superior caste tempt and find 
gratification in the easy chastity of the females. . . . 

20 [In countries where free labor prevails], the un- 
married woman who becomes a mother is an outcast 
from society — and though sentimentalists lament the 
hardship of the case, it is justly and necessarily so. 
But with us this female slave has a different status. 

25 She is not a less useful member of society than be- 
fore. She has not impaired her means of support 
nor materially impaired her character or lowered her 
station in society; she has done no great injury to 
herself or any other human being. Her offspring is 

421 



Source Problems in United States History 

not a burden but an acquisition to her owner. 
Under these circumstances, with imperfect knowl- 
edge and unrestrained by the motives which operate 
to restrain, can it be a matter of surprise that she 

s should so often yield to the temptation? 

... It is mostly the warm passions of youth which 
give rise to licentious intercourse. But I do not 
hesitate to say that the intercourse which takes place 
with enslaved females is less depraving in its effects 

10 than when it is carried on with females of their own 
caste. The intercourse is generally casual and the 
woman is not made an associate; nor does she cor- 
rupt the manners of young men as similar women 
do in free society. ... Is it no compensation for the 

15 vices incident to slavery that slaves are secure 
against the temptation to greater crimes and the 
miseries which attend them? . . . 

Perhaps a wise foresight should induce our State 

• to provide that it should have within itself such 

20 military knowledge and skill as may be sufficient 
to organize, discipline and command armies, by 
establishing a military academy or school of dis- 
cipline. The school of the militia will not do for 
this. From the general opinion of our weakness, if 

25 our country should at any time come into hostile 
collision, we shall be selected for the point of attack; 
making us, according to Mr. Adams's anticipation, 
the Flanders of the United States. . . . But the folly 
of these assumptions of our weakness is evident, 

422 



The Slavery Problem 

The fidelity of the slaves to their masters is not to 
be so easily shaken as men imagine. They are al- 
ready in our possession and we might at will arm and 
organize them in any number that we might think 

5 proper. We might use any discipline necessary to 
make them effective soldiers and their habits of 
subordination, already formed, would make the task 
less difficult. They are excitable by praise; and, 
directed by those in whom they have confidence, 

10 would rush fearlessly and unquestioning upon any 
sort of danger. With white officers and accompanied 
by a strong white cavalry, there are no troops in 
the world from whom there would be so little reason 
to apprehend insubordination or mutiny. . . . 

15 Supposing finally that the abolitionists should 
effect their purpose. What would be the result? 
The first and most obvious effect would be to put 
an end to the cultivation of our great Southern 
staple. And this would be equally the result if we 

20 suppose the emancipated negroes to be in no way 
distinguished from the free laborers of other coun- 
tries and that their labor would be equally effective. 
The cultivation of the great staple crops can not be 
carried on in any portion of our own country where 

25 there are not slaves. . . . Even if it were possible to 
procure laborers at all, what planter would venture 
to carry on his operations? Imagine an extensive 
rice or cotton plantation cultivated by free laborers 
who might perhaps strike for an increase of wages 

423 



Source Problems in United States History 

at a season when the neglect of a few days would 
insure the destruction of the whole crop. I need 
hardly say that these staples can not be produced 
to any extent where the proprietor of the soil culti- 
5 vates it with his own hands. 

And what w^ould be the effect of putting an end 
to the cultivation of these staples and thus anni- 
hilating, at a blow, two-thirds or three-fourths of 
our foreign commerce? Can any sane mind con- 

10 template such a result without terror? Our slavery 
has not only given existence to millions of slaves 
within our own territories, it has given the means 
of subsistence, and therefore of existence, to millions 
of freemen in our confederate States; enabling 

15 them to send forth their swarms to overspread the 
plains and forests of the West and appear as the 
harbingers of civilization. Not only on our con- 
tinent but on the other it has given existence to 
hundreds of thousands and the means of comfort- 

20 able subsistence to millions. A distinguished citizen 
of our State has lately stated that our great staple, 
cotton, has contributed more than anything else of 
later times to the progress of civilization. By 
enabHng the poor to obtain cheap and becoming 

25 clothing, it has inspired a taste for comfort, the 
first stimulus to civiHzation. 

Does not self-defense, then, demand of us steadily 
to resist the abrogation of that which is productive 
of so much good? It is more than self-defense. It 

424 



The Slavery Problem 

is to defend millions of human beings who are far 
removed from us from the intensest suffering, if 
not from being struck out of existence. It is the 
defense of human civilization. 

5 9. Abraham Lincoln's Speeches, edited by J. B. 
McClure. [Lincoln's Peoria speech, October 
16, 1854.] 
Pages 92-93. 
Before proceeding let me say that I have no 

10 prejudice against Southern people. They are just 
what we would be in their situation. If slavery did 
not now exist among them, they would not intro- 
duce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not 
instantly give it up. This I believe of the macses 

15 North and South. Doubtless there are individuals, 
on both sides, who would not hold slaves under any 
circumstances and others who would gladly introduce 
slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know 
that some Southern men do free their slaves, go 

20 North, and become tip-top abolitionists; while 
some Northern ones go South and become most 
cruel slave-masters. 

When Southern people tell us they are no more 
responsible for the origin of slavery than we are, I 

25 acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the in- 
stitution exists and that it is very difficult to get rid 
of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and ap- 
preciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for 
not doing what I should not know how to do myself, 

425 



Source Problems in United States History 

If all earthly power were given me, I should not 
know what to do as to the existing institution. My 
first impulse would be to free all the slaves and send 
them to Liberia — to their native land. But a mo- 
5 ment's reflection would convince me that whatever 
of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in 
this in the long run, its sudden execution is impos- 
sible. If they all landed there in a day, they would 
all perish in the next ten days, and there are not 

10 surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry 
them there in many times ten days. What then? 
Free them all and keep them among us as under- 
lings? Is it quite certain that this betters their 
condition ? 

15 I think I would not hold one in slavery at any 
rate: yet the point is not clear enough for me to 
denounce people upon. What next? Free them, 
and make them politically and socially our equals? 
My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine 

20 would, we well know that those of the great mass 
of white people would not. Whether this feeling 
accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the 
sole question if indeed it is any part of it. A uni- 
versal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not 

25 be safely disregarded. We can not then make them 
equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual 
emancipation might be adopted ; but for their tardi- 
ness in this I will not undertake to judge our breth- 
ren of the South. 

426 



The Slavery Problem 

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, 
I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and 
fairly ; and I would give them any legislation for the 
reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not in its 

5 stringency be more likely to carry a free man into 
slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang 
an innocent one. 

lo. The Congressional Globe, 66th Congress, ist 
Session. [The Barbarism of Slavery, speech 

lo of Charles Sumner on June 4, i860.] 

Pages 2590-92. 

Language is too feeble to express all the enormity 
of this institution, which is now vaunted as in itself 
a form of civilization "ennobling" at least to the 

15 master, if not to the slave. Look at it in whatever 
light you will and it is always the scab, the canker, 
the bare-bones and the shame of the country ; wrong 
not merely in the abstract, as is often admitted by 
its apologists, but wrong in the concrete also and 

20 possessing no single element of right. Look at it 
in the light of principles and it is nothing less than 
a huge insurrection against the eternal law of God, 
involving in its pretensions the denial of all human 
law and also the denial of that Divine Law in which 

25 God himself is manifest, thus being practically the 
grossest wrong and the grossest atheism. Founded 
in violence, sustained only by violence, such a wrong 
must, by a sure law of compensation, blast the mas- 
ter as well as the slave; blast the lands on which 

427 



Source Problems in United States History 

they live; blast the community of which they are 
a part; blast the Government which does not for- 
bid the outrage; and the longer it exists and the 
more completely it prevails the more must its blast- 

5 ing influences penetrate the whole social system. 
Barbarous in origin; barbarous in its law; barbarous 
in all its pretensions; barbarous in the instruments 
it employs; barbarous in its consequences; barbar- 
ous in spirit; barbarous wherever it shows itself, 

10 slavery must breed barbarians, while it develops 
everywhere, alike in the individual and in the so- 
ciety to which he belongs, the essential elements 
of barbarism. . . . 

Slavery is a bloody Touch-me-not, and every- 

15 where in sight now blooms the bloody flower. It is 
on the wayside as we approach the national capitol; 
it is on the marble steps which we mount ; it flaunts 
oh this floor. I stand now in the house of its friends. 
About me, while I speak, are its most sensitive guar- 

20 dians who have shown in the past how much they 
are ready to do or not to do where slavery is in 
question. Menaces to deter me have not been 
spared. But I should ill deserve this high post of 
duty here if I could hesitate. Idolatry has often been 

25 exposed in the presence of idolaters and hypocrisy 
has been chastised in the presence of Scribes and 
Pharisees. Such examples may give encouragement 
to a Senator who undertakes in this presence to expose 
slavery; nor can any language, directly responsive 

428 



The Slavery Problem 

to the assumptions now made for this barbarism, 
be open to question. Slavery can only be painted 
in the sternest colors. . . . 

The law of slavery openly pronounces the incom- 

s petency of the whole African race — whether bond 
or free— to testify against a white man and thus 
crowns its tyranny by excluding the very testimony 
through which the bloody cruelty of the slave-master 
might be exposed. In its law does slavery paint 

10 itself. . . . Against such arrogance the argument is 
brief. According to the law of nature, written by 
the same hand that placed the planets in their orbits, 
every human being has a complete title to himself 
direct from the Almighty. Naked he is born; but 

IS this birthright is inseparable from the human form. 
A man may be poor in this world's goods; but he 
owns himself. No war or robbery, • ancient or re- 
cent ; no capture ; no middle passage ; no change of 
clime; no purchase money; no transmission from 

20 hand to hand, no matter how many times, and no 
matter at what price, can defeat this indefeasible 
God-given franchise. . . . 

Slavery tyrannically assumes a power which 
Heaven denied, while under its barbarous necro- 

25 mancy, borrowed from the Source of Evil, a man is 
changed into a chattel — a person is withdrawn into 
a thing — a soul is shrunk into merchandise. Say, 
sir, in your madness that you own the sun, the 
stars, the moon; but do not say that you own a 

429 



Source Problems in United States History 

man, endowed with a soul that shall live immortal, 
when sun and moon and stars have passed away. 
Under the law of slavery no marriage sacrament 
among slaves is respected, and no such contract can 

5 exist. The ties that may be formed between slaves 
are all subject to the selfish interests or more selfish 
lust of the master whose license knows no check. 
Natural affections which have come together are 
rudely torn asunder; nor is this all. Stripped of 

10 every defense, the chastity of a whole race is exposed 
to violence, while the result is recorded in the tell- 
tale faces of children, glowing with their master's 
blood, but doomed for their mother's skin to slavery 
through all descending generations. 

15 ... Slavery paints itself in its complete abroga- 
tion of the parental relation which God in his benevo- 
lence has provided for the nurture and education of 
the human family and which constitutes an essential 
part of civilization itself. And yet by the law of 

20 slavery — happily beginning to be modified in some 
places — this relation is set at naught and in its place 
is substituted the arbitrary control of the master, 
at whose mere command little children, such as the 
Saviour called unto him, though clasped by a 

25 mother's arms, may be swept under the hammer 
of the auctioneer. 

Under the plain and unequivocal law of slavery, 
the bondman may, at the unrestrained will of his 
master, be shut out from all instruction while in 

430 



The Slavery Problem 

many places, incredible to relate, the law itself, by 
cumulative provisions, positively forbids that he 
shall be taught to read. Of course the slave can not 
be allowed to read, for his soul would then expand 

5 in larger air, while he saw the glory of the North 
star and also the helping truth that God, who made 
iron, never made a slave; for he would then become 
familiar with the Scriptures, with the Decalogue 
still speaking in the thunders of Sinai; with that 

lo ancient text, "he that stealeth a man and selleth 
him, or if he be found in his hands, he shall surely 
be put to death"; with that other text, "Masters 
give unto your servants that which is just and equal ' ' ; 
and with that sublimer story, where the Saviour died 

IS a cruel death, that all men, without distinction of 
race, might be saved — leaving to mankind command- 
ments which, even without his example, make slav- 
ery impossible. Thus in order to fasten your 
manacles upon the slave, you fasten other manacles 

20 upon his soul. Sir, is not slavery barbarous? 

Finally, slavery paints itself in the appropriation 
of all the toil of its victims, excluding them from 
that property in their own earnings which the law 
of nature allows and civilization secures. The pain- 

25 ful injustice of this pretension is lost in its meanness. 
It is robbery and petit larceny under the garb of law. 
And even its meanness is lost in the absurdity of its 
associate pretension that the African, thus despoiled 
of all his earnings, is saved from poverty and that 

431 



' Source Problems in United States History 

for his own good he must work for his master and 
not for himself. Alas by such a fallacy is a whole 
race pauperized! A solemn poet, whose verse has 
found wide favor, pictures a creature who 

s with one hand put 

A penny in the urn of poverty, 
And with the other took a shilling out. . . . 

I can not cease to deplore a system which, under 
an affectation of charity, sordidly takes from the 
10 slave all the fruits of his bitter sweat and thus 
takes from him the mainspring to exertion. Tell 
me, is not slavery barbarous? 

II. The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan 
Palmer, by Thomas Gary Johnson. [Thanks- 
is giving sermon delivered in the First Presby- 
terian Church, New Orleans, i860.] 
Pages 209-13. 

The particular trust assigned to a people becomes 
the pledge of the divine protection ; and their fidelity 
20 to it determines the fate by which it is finally over- 
taken. What that trust is must be ascertained from 
the necessities of their position, the institutions 
which are the outgrowth of their principles and the 
conflicts through which they preserve their identity 
25 and independence. If then the South is such a 
people what, at this juncture, is their providential 
trust? I answer that it is to conserve and to per- 
petuate the institution of domestic slavery as now 

432 



The Slavery Problem 

existing. It is not necessary here to inquire whether 
this is precisely the best relation in which the hewer 
of wood and drawer of water can stand to his em- 
ployer. Still less are we required to affirm that it 
5 will subsist through all time. . . . 

These great questions of Providence and history 
must have free scope for their solution; and the 
race whose fortunes are distinctly implicated in the 
same is alone authorized, as it is alone competent, 

10 to determine them. It is just this impertinence of 
human legislation, settled bounds to what God alone 
can regulate, that the South is called this day to re- 
sent and resist. The country is convulsed simply 
because the ' ' throne of iniquity f rameth mischief by 

15 a law." Without, therefore, determining the ques- 
tion of duty for future generations I simply say that 
for us, as now situated, the duty is plain of conserv- 
ing and transmitting the system of slavery, with the 
freest scope for its natural development and ex- 

20 tension. Let us, my brethren, look our duty in the 
face. With this institution assigned to our keeping, 
what reply shall we make to those who say that its 
days are numbered? My own conviction is, that 
we should at once lift ourselves, intelligently, to the 

25 highest moral ground and proclaim to all the world 
that we hold this trust from God and in its occupancy 
we are prepared to stand or fall as God may appoint. 
If the critical moment has arrived at which the great 
issue is joined, let us say that in the sight of all 

433 



/ Source Problems in United States History- 
perils we will stand by our trust: and God be with 
the right ! 

The argument which enforces the solemnity of this 
providential trust is simple and condensed. It is 
5 bound upon us, then, by the principles of self- 
preservation, that first law which is continually as- 
serting its supremacy over all others. Need I pause 
to show how this system of servitude underlies and 
supports our material interests; that our wealth 

lo consists in our lands and the serfs who till them; 
that from the nature of our products the}^ can only 
be cultivated by labor which must be controlled in 
order to be certain; that any other than a tropical 
race must faint and wither beneath a tropical sun? 

15 Need I pause to show how this system is interwoven 
with our entire social fabric ; that these slaves form 
parts of our households, even as our children; and 
that, too, through a relationship recognized and 
sanctioned in the Scriptures of God even as the 

20 other? , . . How then can the hand of violence be 
laid upon it without involving our existence? . . . 
This duty is bound upon us again as the con- 
stituted guardians of the slaves themselves. Our lot 
is not more implicated in theirs than their lot in 

25 ours; in our mutual relations we survive or perish 
together. ... It is not too much to say that if the 
South should, at this moment, surrender every slave, 
the wisdom of the entire world, united in solemn 

434 



The Slavery Problem 

council, could not solve the question of their dis- 
posal. Their transportation to Africa would be but 
the most refined cruelty ; their residence here, in the 
presence of the vigorous Anglo-Saxon race, would be 
s but the signal for their rapid extermination before 
they had time to waste away through listlessness, 
filth and vice. Freedom would be their doom ; and 
equally from both they call upon us, their provi- 
dential guardians, to be protected. My servant, 

10 whether born in my house or bought with my money, 
stands me in the relation of a child. Though prov- 
identially owing me service which, providentially, 
I am bound to exact, he is nevertheless my brother 
and my friend and I am to him a guardian and 

IS father. He leans upon me for protection, for coun- 
sel and for blessing ; and so long as the relation con- 
tinues, no power but the power of the Almighty God 
shall come between him and me. 

The enriching commerce which has built the splen- 

20 did cities and marble palaces of England, as well as 
of America, has been largely established upon the 
products of our soil; and the blooms upon South- 
ern fields gathered by black hands have fed the 
spindles and looms of Manchester and Birmingham 

25 not less than of Lawrence and Lowell. Strike now 
a blow at this system of labor and the world itself 
totters at the stroke. Shall we permit that blow to 
fall? Do we not owe it to civilized man to stand 
in the breach and stay the uplifted arm? If the 

435 



( Source Problems in United States History 

blind Samson lays hold of the pillars which support 
the arch of the world's industry, how many more 
will be buried beneath its ruins than the lords of 
the Philistines? "Who knoweth whether we are 

s not come to the kingdom for such a time as this?" 

Last of all in this great struggle, we defend the 

cause of God and religion. The abolitionist spirit is 

undeniably atheistic. . . . From a thousand Jacobin 

clubs here, as in France, the decree has gone forth 

10 which strikes at God by striking at all subordination 
and law. Availing itself of the morbid and mis- 
directed sympathies of men, it has entrapped weak 
consciences in the meshes of its treachery ; and now, 
at last, has seated its high priest upon the throne, 

IS clad in the black garments of discord and schism, 
so symbolic of its ends. Under this suspicious cry 
of reform, it demands that every evil shall be cor- 
rected or society become a wreck — the sun must be 
stricken from the heavens if a spot is found on his 

20 disk. The Most High, knowing his own power, 
which is infinite, and his own wisdom, which is un- 
fathomable, can afford to be patient. But these self- 
constituted reformers must quicken the activity of 
Jehovah or compel his abdication. . . . 

25 This spirit of atheism which knows no God who 
tolerates evil, no Bible which sanctions law and no 
conscience that can be bound by oaths and cove- 
nants, has selected us for its victims and slavery for 
its issue. Its banner-cry rings out already upon the 

436 



The Slavery Problem 

air — * 'liberty, equality, fraternity," which simply 
interpreted mean bondage, confiscation and mas- 
sacre. With its tricolor waving in the breeze, it 
waits to inaugurate its reign of terror. To the South 

s the high position is assigned of defending before all 
nations the cause of all religion and of all truth. 
In this trust we are resisting the power which wars 
against constitutions and laws and compacts, against 
Sabbaths and sanctuaries, against the family, the 

10 State and the Church; which blasphemously in- 
vades the prerogatives of God and rebukes the Most 
High for the errors of his administration; which, if 
it can not snatch the reign of empire from his grasp 
will lay the universe in ruins at his feet. 

15 This argument, then, which sweeps over the entire 
circle of our relations, touches the four cardinal 
points of duty to ourselves, to our slaves, to the 
world and to Almighty God. It establishes the 
nature and solemnity of our present trust to preserve 

20 and transmit our existing system of domestic servi- 
tude, with the right unchallenged by man to go and 
root itself wherever Providence and nature may 
carry it. This trust we will discharge in the face 
of the worst possible peril. 



PROBLEM VII 

VII. — Fort Sumter and the Outbreak of 
the Civil War 



Fort Sumter and the Outbreak of 
the Civil War 

I. THE HISTORICAL SETTING OF THE PROBLEM 

THE study of the Battle of Lexington was largely an 
exercise in the analysis and weighing of conflicting 
evidence as to a single matter of fact : which side fired the 
first shot. The material as to the beginning of hostilities 
in the Civil War is of a somewhat different character. 
The fundamental parallel here offered for study is that 
between the administrations of President Buchanan and 
President Lincoln, with the general aims of each, and the 
measures taken to accomplish the common task of pre- 
serving the Union, without war if possible. During this 
period the possession of the forts in the harbor of Charles- 
ton, South Carolina, was the principal concrete issue be- 
tween the cause of union and that of secession. In 
arguing about this matter, the opposing political philoso- 
phies of the North and the South came out in sharp 
contrast. But apart from theories, the leaders on both 
sides had to consider numerous questions of expediency 
and general policy, judging every proposal as to the forts 
in its relation to the larger issue of secession and the 
whole future of the country. Responsible leaders on both 
sides wished to accomplish their ends without bloodshed 
if possible; and if war proved inevitable, each section 

441 



Source Problems in United States History 

wished the moral advantage of having the other strike 
the first blow. The question of time was an added con- 
sideration. The South needed weeks and months to com- 
plete the secession movement in the states, to organize 
some central government, and to push military prepara- 
tions. The North also, in spite of its advantage in pos- 
sessing the machinery of government, was not ready for 
a war of any magnitude. Most of the small army was 
guarding the frontiers against the Indians, and many of 
the warships were in foreign waters. 

During the five months and more covered by the source 
extracts, the general situation was changing with bewil- 
dering rapidity. Each extract therefore should be con- 
sidered in the light of the development of the secession 
movement as a whole and the fortunes of the various 
compromise measures which aimed at a peaceful solution 
of the difficulty. It is important to remember that Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee did not 
secede until after Sumter was fired on, and that the bor- 
der states of Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland were 
long considered so doubtful that both sides hoped to 
secure their adherence. It is to make the setting of the 
extracts clearer that a number of chronological notes have 
been inserted. 

It was the election of Lincoln, on a platform which op- 
posed the further extension of slavery, which had pre- 
cipitated the crisis. To President Buchanan the situation 
was trying in the extreme. Personally he had no sym- 
pathy with the northern radicals who in his judgment 
had caused all the mischief, and yet for four months 
he continued to be the responsible executive head of 
the Union. His temperament and his party affiliations 
made him unwilling to take drastic action against the 
South, 3^et he could not and would not admit the right 
of secession. For any man, the situation in which Presi- 

442 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

dent Buchanan found himself would have been a difficult 
one. The national government was full of men who 
openly or secretly sympathized with the southern cause, 
and did their best to aid it. Northern public opinion 
seemed confused and hesitating. Many hoped that 
secession would not spread beyond South Carolina, or at 
most the Cotton States, and that if left alone the move- 
ment would soon collapse. Others, including some of the 
abolitionists, advocated "letting the erring sisters depart 
in peace." More ardent advocates of union urged 
that the first separatist tendencies should be promptly 
crushed by force. Many hoped and believed that the 
Union might still be saved by some sort of compromise, 
as had been the case in earlier crises, and numerous 
efforts were made to formulate terms satisfactory to 
both sections. 

In comparing the two administrations, it should be 
borne in mind that Lincoln found a situation which to a 
considerable degree had been brought about by his pred- 
ecessor. For a time at least the new president had to 
take account of agreements and policies inherited from 
the outgoing executive. Until he had mastered various 
details, and had weighed the probable effects of different 
courses of action, it was natural that Lincoln should 
hesitate. However, it does not necessarily follow that if 
Lincoln had taken office immediately after his election 
he would have done as Buchanan did. 

The material presented should be sufficient to enable 
the student to arrive at some independent answer to the 
critical questions: What were the essentials of Buchanan's 
policy as to the Charleston forts? Under the circum- 
stances, what ought Buchanan to have done differently? 
How did the policy of Lincoln compare with that of 
Buchanan? In addition to these more important lines 
of study, a more limited parallel source problem is pre- 

443 



Source Problems in United States Historv 

sented by the interview of President Buchanan with the 
South CaroHna congressmen. The question later arose 
whether at this time the president definitely promised 
not to change the military situation in Charleston. He 
himself insisted that no binding pledge had been given. 
The congressmen, tacitly admitting this, still felt that 
he had broken a gentleman's agreement. Is this a situa- 
tion where one side was right and the other wrong, or 
was it more of a misunderstanding, due to the many per- 
sons and forces involved, the irreconcilable points of view, 
the tenseness of the situation, and the rapid succession of 
events? Finally, some of the extracts include incidental 
arguments for and against the right of secession, thus 
connecting with the subject of Study VI. 



II. INTRODUCTIONS TO THE SOURCES 

1. Mr. Buchanan's Administration on the Eve of the Re- 
bellion, [by James Buchanan] . (New York, 1 866.) Quoted 
as Mr. Buchanan's Administration. 

Buchanan's actions provoked so much criticism that 
at the close of the war he published his own account of 
his administration, giving most space to the last few 
months. It is based not only on his recollections of 
events, but on contemporary diaries, letters, and docu- 
ments. Some allowance, however, must be made for 
the lapse of time, and for the apologetic object of 
the work. 

2. The Genesis of the Civil War. The Story of Sumter, 
1860-186 1, by Samuel Wylie Crawford. (New York, 
1887.) 

Assistant-Surgeon S. W. Crawford was stationed at 
Charleston after September, i860. His interest as a 

444 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

participant led him later to collect all possible material 
bearing on the Sumter episode. His book is the standard 
account. 

3 . The War of the Rebellion: a Compilation of the Official 
Records of the Union and Confederate Armies, Series 
I, Vol. I. (Washington, 1880.) Quoted as Official 
Records. 

This great series of 129 volumes, published at intervals 
for a nimiber of years, in spite of some defects in editing, 
is of fundamental importance for any serious study of 
the Civil War. 

4. Life of James Buchanan, Fifteenth President of the 
United States, by George Ticknor Curtis, Vol. II. (New 
York, 1883.) 

The author strongly sjrmpathizes with President 
Buchanan, and defends practically all his actions. Many 
important documents are quoted. 

5. Rebellion Record, Frank Moore, editor, Vol. I. 
This series, which appeared at intervals during the 

war, is a rather miscellaneous collection of extracts from 
contemporary newspapers and the like, with a supple- 
ment of official documents. 

6. Abraham Lincoln, a History, by John G. Nicolay 
and John Hay, Vols. II, HI. (New York, 1890.) 

This monumental work, which is practically a political 
history of the United States during Lincoln's lifetime, is 
written from a strongly union standpoint. The authors 
had been Lincoln's private secretaries. They are very 
critical of all Buchanan's acts, and seem to feel that vigor- 
ous action on his part might have prevented the spread 
of the secession movement. 

7. Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works, John G. Nicolay 
and John Hay, editors, Vol. II. (New York, 1894.) 

445 



Source Problems in United States History 



III. QUESTIONS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR STUDY 

1. What was the advice of army officers as to holding the 

Charleston forts, October-November, i860? (Ex- 
tracts I, 4.) 

2. What policy as to the secession movement was advocated 

by the New York Tribune after Lincoln's election? 
(2.) Do you know whether the Tribune was an influen- 
tial paper? 

3. What did Buchanan think as to the right of a state to 

secede? (7.) 

4. To what did he attribute the secession crisis? 

5. What solution did he suggest? 

6. According to Buchanan, who had the power to decide the 

larger questions of the attitude of the United States 
toward secession? 

7. What was meant by ''coercing" a state? 

8. What did Buchanan think of the constitutionality of 

coercion? 

9. What policy as to coercion was announced in Lincoln's 

inaugural address? 

10. What was Buchanan's conception of his right and his duty 

to hold the Charleston forts? (7, 20.) What authority 
did he have? (3, 20.) 

11. What do you regard as the military advantage of holding 

the southern forts? the political advantage? 

12. Was there a real distinction between the performance of 

Federal functions (holding forts, collecting customs, 
sending mail, etc.), and "coercing" a state? 

13. Did the South seem to recognize such a distinction? (12, 

13, 15.) Could it recognize it without admitting that 
the southern states were legally in the Union? 

14. What did Buchanan promise the South Carolina congress- 

men? (8.) 

15. What did the congressmen understand as to the inter- 

view? (17.) 

16. What was the substance of the instructions sent to Ander- 

446 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

son? (9.) Do they seem unduly favorable to the 
South? 

17. Was Anderson justified by his instructions in removing to 

Fort Sumter? (9, 12, 14.) 

18. What effect did the removal of Anderson to Sumter have 

on South Carolina? On the southern leaders in Wash- 
ington? on Secretary Floyd? on the president? (11, 
12, 13, 15, 16.) 

19. Why did Buchanan think of sending Anderson back, and 

then refuse to do so? (12, 16.) 

20. Do you think that this move by Anderson constituted a 

violation of any pledge given by the president? What 
did the South think on this point? (11, 13.) 

21. On what grounds did South Carolina demand possession 

of the forts? (15, 21.) 

22. On what grounds did Buchanan refuse to evacuate the forts? 

23. Why was it a tactical mistake for the administration to 

emphasize the property value of the forts? (16, 20.) 

24. Summarize the advice given by General Scott as to the 

Charleston forts at different times. (10, 18, 24, 29.) 

25. What federal officials mentioned in the selections favored 

the southern cause? 

26. What indications of divided northern opinion appear? 

27. Why did Buchanan decide to try to reinforce the forts in 

November? How was he dissuaded? (5, 6, 8.) 

28. What policy as to the forts did Lincoln announce in his 

inaugural address ? (22.) 

29. Did this differ from Buchanan's policy? If so, how? 

Comment on this in detail. 

30. What was the military situation in Charleston harbor at 

Lincoln's assumption of office? (11, 14, 16.) 

31. What was Seward's attitude as to Sumter? What did the 

other cabinet members think on March 15th? 

32. What impression was given to southern leaders by Lamon 

and Seward? Was either of them authorized to promise 
that Sumter would be evacuated? 

33. Did Lincoln at one time intend to order the evacuation of 

Sumter? On what ground? 
447 



Source Problems In United States History 

34. When Seward said ''Faith as to Sumter fully kept," did he 

mean that the fort would be given up, or that notice 
would be given of an attempt to provision it? (25.) 

35. Why did the South feel aggrieved when word came of the 

attempt to provision Sumter? 

36. What was Lincoln's purpose in holding Sumter? (30.) 

Would holding Fort Pickens have served this purpose? 

37. How did the situation at Fort Pickens influence Lincoln's 

decision as to Fort Sumter? (30.) 

38. Why did Lincoln hesitate to reinforce Sumter? 

39. Why was Anderson's reply to Beauregard's aide, April 12th, 

regarded as unsatisfactory? (31.) 

40. On the basis of the material presented, write a concise con- 

nected account of the whole Sumter episode, giving 
foot-note references to your authorities. 

41. Discuss the following statements, giving your reasons for 

agreeing or disagreeing with them: 

(a) ''When we compare what he did with what he 
ought to have done, we may affirm with reason that 
of all our Presidents, with perhaps a single excep- 
tion, Buchanan made the most miserable failure." 
(J. F. Rhodes, History of the United States, III, 130.) 

(b) "My estimate of [Buchanan's] abilities and powers 
as a statesman has risen with every investigation 
that I have made; and it is, in my judgment, not 
too much to say of him as President of the United 
States, that he is entitled to stand very high on 
the catalogue — not a large one — of those who have 
had the moral courage to encounter misrepresen- 

'* tation and obloquy, rather than swerve from the 

line of duty which their convictions marked out 
for them." (G. T. Curtis, Life of James Buchanan, 
I, vi.) 

(c) "That Buchanan deserves historical censure for 
not having pursued the Jacksonian policy seems 
to me beyond question; for the path of duty was 
so plain that he should have 'walked in it, and 
accepted whatever consequences came from right- 

448 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

doing. Yet what the consequences might have 
been is a fair subject of historical inquiry. That 
firm and prompt action on the part of the Presi- 
dent would have been alone sufficient to nip 
secession in the bud, as it did nullification in 1832, 
I cannot bring myself to beHeve, although it so 
appeared to some contemporary actors, and al- 
though such a view has been urged with persistence 
by later writers. It does, however, seem possible 
that such vigor might have led, in December, to 
a compromise of a sort to prevent the secession 
of any State but South Carolina. Yet those of us 
w^ho hold to the idea of the irrepressible conflict 
can see in the success of such a project no more 
than the delay of a war that was inevitable. . . . 
The mainspring of [Buchanan's] wavering course 
was his feverish desire that the war should not 
begin under a Democratic administration, nor 
while he was in the Presidential chair. . . . Had he 
risen to that height [of Jackson] the war might 
have begun under his presidency, but he would 
have had a united North at his back; and when 
he retired to private life with the approval of a 
grateful people, he might have handed over to 
his successor, with the advantage of a continuity 
of administration, a well-defined policy." (J. F. 
Rhodes, History of the United States, III, 135-6.) 
{d) "Secretary Toombs . . . appreciated the feeling of 
the North, and gave his counsel in the Davis 
Cabinet against the immediate assault upon 
Sumter. . . . 'Mr. President,' he said, 'at this time, 
it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend 
at the North. You will wantonly strike a hor- 
net's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, 
and legions, now quiet, will swarm out and sting 
us to death. It is unnecessary; it puts us in the 
wrong; it is fatal.' " (P. A. Stovall, Life of Robert 
Toofnbs, 226.) 

449 



Source Problems in United States History 

(e) "In writing to his wife about Buchanan's message 
to Congress of December 4th, W. H. Seward said 
it 'shows conclusively that it is the duty of the 
President to enforce the laws — unless somebody 
opposes him; and that no State has a right to go 
out of the Union — unless it wants to.'" (LifeoJ 
Seward, by F. W. Seward, II, 480.) Is this a fair 
comment? 



IV. The Sources 

General Winfield Scott writes President Buchanan (October 
29-30, i860) urging that all Southern Forts be immediately 
garrisoned, but says there are only four hundred soldiers 
available. He adds political advice as to allowing peaceful 
s Secession. Both the military and the political advice the 

President ''dismissed . . . from his mind without further 
consideration." (Mr. Buchanan's Administration, 104.) 

1. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 69. 
[November 5, i860. Col. J. L. Gardner, com- 

10 manding at Fort Moultrie, South Carolina, to 

Col. H. K. Craig, Chief of Ordnance, Washington.] 

. . . On the point of expediency ... I am constrained 

to say that the only proper precaution ... is to fill 

these two companies with drilled recruits (say fifty 

15 men) at once, and send two companies from Old 

Point Comfort to occupy respectively Fort Sumter 

and Castle Pinckney. 

November 6th. Abraham Lincoln elected President. 

2. The American Conflict, by Horace Greeley, p. 359. 
20 [Editorial, November 9, i860, in the New York 

Tribune.] 
The telegraph informs us that most of the Cotton 
States are meditating a withdrawal from the Union, 
30 451 



Source Problems in United States History 

because of Lincoln's election. . . . We hold, with 
Jefferson, to the inalienable right of communities to 
alter or abolish forms of government that have 
become oppressive or injurious; and, if the Cotton 
5 States shall decide that they can do better out of 
the Union than in it, we insist on letting them go 
in peace. The right to secede may be a revolution- 
ary one, but it exists nevertheless. 

November loth. The South Carolina Legislature calls a 
10 Convention to meet December 17th, to consider the ques- 

tion of Secession. 

3. Lije of James Buchanan, by G. T. Curtis, Vol. 
II, pp. 321, 323, 324. 
[From the legal opinion given November 20th 
IS by Attorney-General J. S. Black, when asked 
by President Buchanan as to the rights and 
duties of the Executive under the existing cir- 
cumstances.] 
Your right to take such measures as may seem 
20 to be necessary for the protection of the public prop- 
erty is very clear. . . . The existing laws put and keep 
the Federal Government strictly on the defensive. 
You can use force only to repel an assault on the 
public property and aid the courts in the perform- 
25 ance of their duty. If the means given to you collect 
the revenue and execute the other laws be insuffi- 
cient for that purpose. Congress may extend and 
make them more effectual to those ends. If one of 
the States should declare her independence ... I see 

452 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

no course for you but to go straight onward in the 
path you have hitherto trodden — that is, execute the 
laws to the extent of the defensive means placed in 
your hands, and act generally upon the assumption 

s that the present constitutional relations between the 
States and the Federal Government continue to 
exist, until a new code of things shall be established 
either by law or force. 
4. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 75. 

10 [November 23, i860. Major Robert Anderson, 

now in command of the forts in Charleston 

harbor, to Col. S. Cooper, Adjutant -General, 

Washington.] 

I need not say how anxious I am — indeed, deter- 

15 mined, so far as honor will permit — to avoid collision 
with the citizens of South Carolina. Nothing, how- 
ever, will be better calculated to prevent bloodshed 
than our being found in such an attitude that it 
would be madness and folly to attack us. There is 

20 not so much of feverish excitement as there was last 
week, but that there is a settled determination to 
leave the Union, and to obtain possession of this 
work, is apparent to all. Castle Pinckney, being so 
near the city, and having no one in it but an ord- 

25 nance sergeant, they regard as already in their pos- 
session. The clouds are threatening, and the storm 
may break upon us at any moment. I do, then, 
most earnestly entreat that a re-enforcement be im- 
mediately sent to this garrison, and that two com- 

453 



Source Problems in United States History 

panies be sent at the same time to Fort Sumter and 
Castle Pinckney. ... I feel the full responsibility of 
making the above suggestions, because I firmly be- 
lieve that as soon as the people of South Carolina 
s learn that I have demanded re-enforcements, and 
that they have been ordered, they will occupy Castle 
Pinckney and attack this fort. It is therefore of 
vital importance that the troops embarked (say in 
war steamers) shall be designated for other duty. 

10 ... I will thank the Department to give me special 
instructions, as my position here is rather a politico- 
military than a military one. . . . 
5. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, p. 28. 
[Account by W. H. Trescot, then Assistant Sec- 

15 retary of State, of events in Washington about 
November 25, i860. The account was not writ- 
ten until February, 1861.] 
Governor Floyd [then Secretary of War] called 
upon me evidently much excited. He said that just 

20 after dinner the President had sent for him . . . that 
when he reached him he found General Cass and 
Judge Black, who retired immediately upon his en- 
trance. The President then informed him that he 
had determined to reinforce the garrisons in Charles- 

25 ton harbor, upon which a very animated discussion 
arose. The President finally consented to suspend 
his decision until General Scott could reach Wash- 
ington. . . . Governor Floyd declared [to Trescot] 
that his mind was made up, that he would cut off 

454 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

his right hand before he would sign an order to 
send reinforcements to the Carolina forts, and that 
if the President insisted, he would resign. Mr. 
Thompson, Secretary of the Interior, agreed with 
5 him perfectly, and said he would sustain his course 
and follow him. [After conversation with Floyd, 
Trescot decided to write the Governor of South Caro- 
lina that] the President was under very strong appre- 
hensions that the people of Charleston would seize 

10 the forts ; that in consequence he felt bound to send 
reinforcements. That the Southern members of the 
Cabinet would resist this policy, to resignation, but 
that they thought that if he felt authorized to write 
a letter assuring the President that if no reinforce- 

15 ments were sent, there would be no attempt upon 
the forts before the meeting of the Convention, and 
that then Commissioners would be sent to negotiate 
all the points of difference; that their hands would 
be strengthened, the responsibility of provoking 

20 collision would be taken from the State, and the 
President would probably be relieved from the neces- 
sity of pursuing this policy. 

November 26th. Trescot writes Governor Gist of South 
Carolina as above. 

25 6. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, p. 3 1. 

[Part of Governor Gist's reply, November 29th.] 

. . . Although South Carolina is determined to 

secede . . . yet the desire of her constituted authori- 

455 



Source Problems in United States History 

ties is, not to do anything that will bring on a col- 
lision before the ordinance of secession has been 
passed and notice has been given to the President of 
the fact; and not then, unless compelled to do so 
s by the refusal of the President to recognize our 
right to secede, by attempting to interfere with our 
exports or imports, or by refusal to surrender the 
forts and arsenals within our limits. . . . But the 
Legislature and myself would be powerless to pre- 

10 vent a collision if a single soldier or another gun or 
ammunition be placed in the forts. If President 
Buchanan . . . sends on a reinforcement, the respon- 
sibility will rest on him of lighting the torch of dis- 
cord, which will only be quenched in blood. ... If 

IS you think there is no impropriety in showing this 
letter to the President you are at liberty to do so. . . . 
7. Life oj James Buchanan, by G. T. Curtis, II, 

P- 337 #. 
[Part of President Buchanan's Message to Con- 

20 gress, December 4th.] 

. . . Why is it . . . that discontent now so extensive- 
ly prevails, and the Union of the States ... is threat- 
ened with destruction? The long continued and in- 
temperate interference of the Northern people with 

25 the question of slavery in the Southern States has 
at length produced its natural results. The differ- 
ent sections of the Union are now arrayed against 
each other. . . . How easy it would be for the Ameri- 
can people to settle the slavery question forever, 

456 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted 
country ! . . . All that is necessary to accomplish the 
object, and all for which the slave States have ever 
contended, is to be let alone and permitted to man- 

5 age their domestic institutions in their own way. . . . 
It has been claimed within the last few years that 
any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will 
and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accord- 
ance with the Constitution, and without any viola- 

10 tion of the constitutional rights of the other mem- 
bers of the Confederacy. That as each became 
parties to the Union by the vote of its own people 
assembled in convention, so any one of them may 
retire from the Union in a similar manner by the 

15 vote of such a convention. In order to justify se- 
cession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on 
the principle that the Federal Government is a mere 
voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at 
pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If 

20 this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand. . . . 
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the his- 
tory as well as the character of the Federal Con- 
stitution. ... It was intended to be perpetual, and 
not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the 

25 contracting parties. . . . Secession is neither more nor 
less than revolution. It may or it may not be a 
justifiable revolution; but still it is revolution. 
What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and 
true position of the Executive? He is bound by 

457 



Source Problems in United States History 

solemn oath . . . "to take care that the laws be 
faithfully executed." . . . But what if the performance 
of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered 
impracticable by events over which he could have 

5 exercised no control? [Federal officers in South 
Carolina have resigned. Existing laws are inade- 
quate to enable the President] without further legis- 
lation, to overcome a united opposition in a single 
State, not to speak of other States who may place 

10 themselves in a similar attitude. Congress alone 
has the power to decide whether the present laws 
can or cannot be amended so as to carry out more 
effectively the objects of the Constitution. . . . The 
revenue still continues to be collected, as heretofore, 

IS at the custom-house in Charleston, and should the 
collector unfortunately resign, a successor may be 
appointed to perform this duty. Then, in regard to 
the property of the United States in South Carolina. 
This has been purchased, for a fair equivalent, "by 

20 the consent of the legislature of the State," "for the 
erection of forts, magazines, arsenals," etc., and 
over these the authority to "exercise exclusive legis- 
lation," has been expressly granted by the Con- 
stitution to Congress. It is not believed that any 

25 attempt will be made to expel the United States 
from this property by force; but if in this I should 
prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the 
forts has received orders to act strictly on the de- 
fensive. In such a contingency the responsibility 

458 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

for consequences would rightfully rest upon the 
heads of the assailants. 

Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as 
this may be practicable, the Executive has no au- 
s thority to decide what shall be the relations be- 
tween the Federal Government and South Caro- 
lina. ... It is, therefore, my duty to submit to 
Congress the whole question in all its bearings. 
. . . The question fairly stated is: Has the Con- 
10 stitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce 
a State into submission which is attempting to 
withdraw, or has actually withdrawn, from the 
Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it 
must be on the principle that the power has been con- 
is ferred upon Congress to declare and make war 
against a State. x\fter much serious reflection, I 
have arrived at the conclusion that no such power 
has been delegated to Congress or to any other 
department of the Federal Government. . . . 

20 December 6th. The House of Representatives appoints 

a Committee of Thirty-three to seek a basis for a com- 
promise. 

8. Mr. Buchanan' s Administration, p. 167. 

[President Buchanan's account of his interview 
25 with the South Carolina Congressmen, Decem- 
ber 8th.] 
The President having determined not to disturb 
the status quo at Charleston, as long as our troops 
should continue to be hospitably treated by the in- 

459 



Source Problems In United States History 

habitants, and remain in unmolested possession of 
the forts, was gratified to learn, a short time there- 
after, that South Carolina was equally intent on 
preserving the peace. On the 8th December, i860, 

5 four of the Representatives in Congress from that 
State sought an interview, and held a conversation 
with him concerning the best means of avoiding a 
hostile collision between the parties. In order to 
guard against any misapprehension on either side, 

10 he suggested that they had best reduce their verbal 
communication to writing, and bring it to him in 
that form. Accordingly, on the loth December, 
they delivered him a note, dated on the previous 
day, and signed by five members, in which they say: 

IS 'In compliance with our statement to you yesterday, 
we now express to you our strong convictions that 
neither the constituted authorities, nor any body 
of the people of the State of South Carolina, will 
either attack or molest the United States forts in the 

20 harbor of Charleston, previously to the action of the 
Convention; and we hope and believe not until an 
offer has been made, through an accredited repre- 
sentative, to negotiate ^for an amicable arrangement 
of all matters between the State and the Federal 

25 Government, provided that no reenforcements be 
sent into these forts, and their relative military 
status shall remain as at present.' Both in this and 
in their previous conversation, they declared that 
in making this statement, they were acting solely 

460 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

on their own responsibility, and expressly disclaimed 
any authority to bind their State. They, never- 
theless, expressed the confident belief that they 
would be sustained both by the State authorities 
s and by the Convention, after it should assemble. 
Although the President considered this declaration 
as nothing more than the act of five highly respect- 
able members of the House, yet he welcomed it as 
a happy omen, that by means of their influence col- 

10 lision might be prevented, and time afforded to all 
parties for reflection and for a peaceable adjustment. 
From abundant caution, however, he objected to 
the word 'provided' in their statement, lest, if he 
should accept it without remark, this might possi- 

15 bly be construed into an agreement on his part not 
to reenforce the forts. Such an agreement, he in- 
formed them, he would never make. It would be 
impossible for him, from the nature of his official 
responsibility, thus to tie his own hands and re- 

20 strain his own freedom of action. Still, they might 
have observed from his message, that he had no 
present design, under existing circumstances, to 
change the condition of the forts at Charleston. He 
must, notwithstanding, be left entirely free to exer- 

25 cise his own discretion, according to exigencies as 
they might arise. They replied that nothing was 
farther from their intention than such a construc- 
tion of this word; they did not so understand it, 
and he should not so consider it. 

461 



Source Problems in United States History 

December 8th. Howell Cobb, Secretary of the Treasury, 
resigns because of his sense of duty to the State of Georgia. 

9. Official Records y Series I, Vol. I, p. 89. 

[Memorandum of verbal instructions from Sec- 
5 retary of War Floyd to Major Anderson, com- 
municated December nth by Assistant Adj.- 
Gen. D. C. Buell.] 
You are aware of the great anxiety of the Secretary 
of War that a collision of the troops with the people 
10 of this State shall be avoided, and of his studied 
determination to pursue a course with reference to 
the military force and forts in this harbor which 
shall guard against such a collision. He has there- 
fore carefully abstained from increasing the force 
IS at this point, or taking any measures which might 
add to the present excited state of the public mind, 
or which would throw any doubt on the confidence 
he feels that South Carolina will not attempt, by 
violence, to obtain possession of the public works 
20 or interfere with their occupancy. But as the coun- 
sel and acts of rash and impulsive persons may 
possibly disappoint those expectations of the Gov- 
ernment, he deems it proper that you should be 
prepared with instructions to meet so unhappy a 
25 contingency. He has therefore directed me ver- 
bally to give you such instructions. 

You are carefully to avoid every act which would 
needlessly tend to provoke aggression ; and for that 
reason you are not, without evident and imminent 

462 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

necessity, to take up any position which could be 
construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude. 
But you are to hold possession of the forts in this 
harbor, and if attacked you are to defend yourself 
5 to the last extremity. The smallness of your force 
will not permit you, perhaps, to occupy more than 
one of the three forts, but an attack on or attempt 
to take possession of any one of them will be re- 
garded as an act of hostility, and you may then put 
10 your command into either of them which you may 
deem most proper to increase its power of resist- 
ance. You are also authorized to take similar 
steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a 
design to proceed to a hostile act. 

IS December 15th. Lewis Cass, Secretary of State, resigns 

because more vigorous action is not taken to meet the 
situation in Charleston. 

10. History of the United States, i8jo-i8yy, by J. F. 
Rhodes, III, p. 188, n. 2. 
20 [Letter of General Winfield Scott to President 

Buchanan, December 15th, urging reinforce- 
ment of the Charleston forts, and describing how 
President Jackson met Nullification in 1832-3.] 
. . . Long prior to the Force Bill (March 2, 1833), 
25 prior to the issue of his proclamation, and, in part, 
prior to the passage of the ordinance of nullification, 
President Jackson — under the Act of March 3, 
1807, "authorizing the employment of the land and 
naval forces" — caused reinforcements to be sent to 

463 



Source Problems in United States History 

Fort Moultrie, and a sloop of war (the Natchez) , ... in 
order to prevent the seizure of that fort by the nulli- 
fiers, and, 2, to insure the execution of the revenue 
laws. General Scott himself arrived at Charleston 

s the day after the passage of the ordinance of nullifica- 
tion, and many of the additional companies were then 
en route for the same destination. 

President Jackson familiarly said at the time: 
"That, by the assembling of those forces, for lawful 

10 purposes, he was not making war upon South Caro- 
lina; but that if South Carolina attacked them, it 
would be South Carolina that made war upon the 
United States." 

December 20th. The South Carolina Convention passes the 

IS Ordinance of Secession. 

December 21st. Secretary of War Floyd tells Major An- 
derson that resistance to the "last extremity" does not re- 
quire useless sacrifice of life against overwhelming odds. 
December 26th. Major Anderson, in view of the military 

20 preparations of South Carolina, abandons Fort Moultrie as 

too exposed, and transfers his men to Fort Sumter, on an 
island in the harbor. 

December 27th. Major Anderson refuses the demand of 
Governor Pickens that he should return to Fort Moultrie. 

2S South Carolina takes possession of all Forts except Sumter, 

raises the State flag over the custom-house and post-ofiice, 
and (December 30th) seizes the arsenal. 
December 27th. President Buchanan is to receive three 
Commissioners appointed December 2 2d by South Carolina, 

30 empowered to treat with the Government of the United 

States for the delivery of the forts, etc., and the assumption 
of South Carolina's share of the national debt. 
464 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

II. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, 
p. 142. 
[W. H. Trescot's account of the effect produced 
in Washington, December 27th, by the news of 
5 Major Anderson's removal. Trescot was As- 

sistant Secretar}^ of State until December 17th, 
but a Southern sympathizer. The account was 
written in February, 1861.] 
. . . The next morning early, I was at the residence 
10 of the Commissioners, and while talking over the 
condition of affairs, Colonel Wigfall, one of the 
Senators from Texas, came in to inform us that the 
telegraph had just brought the news that Major 
Anderson had abandoned Fort Moultrie, spiked his 
IS guns, burned his gun-carriages, cut down the flag- 
staff and removed his command to Fort Sumter. 
We all expressed our disbelief of the intelligence, and 
after a good deal of discussion as to its probability I 
said, "Well, at any rate. Colonel, true or not, I will 
20 pledge my life, if it has been done, it has been with- 
out orders from Washington." Just as I made the 
remark Governor Floyd was announced. After 
the usual courtesies of meeting I said, ''Governor, 
Colonel Wigfall has just brought us this news — re- 
25 peating it — and as you were coming up-stairs I said 
I would pledge my life it was without orders." 
' ' You can do more, ' ' he said smiling, ' ' You can pledge 
your life, Mr. Trescot, that it is not so. It is im- 
possible, It would be not only without orders, but 

465 



Source Problems in United States History 

in the face of orders. To be very frank, Anderson 
was instructed in case he had to abandon his position 
to dismantle Fort Sumter, not Fort Moultrie." I 
asked him, if his carriage was at the door, to let me 
s take it and go home, as there might be telegrams 
there. I went, and in a few minutes returned with 
two telegrams for Colonel Barnwell, which he read 
and handed to Governor Floyd, saying, ''I am afraid, 
Governor, it is too true." Floyd read them, asked 

10 the Commissioners if the authority was sufficient, 
and made no comment, but rose, saying, *'I must 
go to the Department at once." 

As soon as he had left I drove to the Capitol, 
communicated the intelligence to Senator Davis, of 

IS Mississippi, and Senator Hunter, of Virginia, and 
asked them to accompany me to the President. 
We drove to the White House, sent in our names, 
and were asked into the President's room, where he 
joined us in a few moments. When we came in he 

20 was evidently nervous, and immediately commenced 
the conversation by making some remark to Mr. 
Hunter concerning the removal of the consul at 
Liverpool, to which Mr. Hunter made a general 
reply. Colonel Davis then said, **Mr. President, we 

25 have called upon an infinitely graver matter than any 
consulate." ''What is it?" said the President. 
"Have you received any intelligence from Charles- 
ton in the last few hours?" asked Colonel Dav^is. 
"None," said the President. "Then," said Colonel 

466 . 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

Davis, ''I have a great calamity to announce to 
you." He then stated the facts and added, "And 
now, Mr. President, you are surrounded with blood 
and dishonor on all sides." The President was 
5 standing by the mantel-piece, crushing up a cigar 
in the palm of one hand — a habit I have seen him 
practice often. He sat down as Colonel Davis 
finished, and exclaimed, "My God, are calamities (or 
misfortunes, I forget which) never to come singly ! I 

10 call God to witness, you gentlemen, better than any- 
body, know that this is not only without but against 
my orders. It is against my policy." He then ex- 
pressed his doubt of the truth of the telegram, 
thought it strange that nothing had been heard at 

15 the War Department, said he had not seen Governor 
Floyd, and finally sent a messenger for him. When 
Governor Floyd came, he said no news had come to 
the Department, that the heads of the Bureaus 
there thought it unlikely, but that he had tele- 

20 graphed Major Anderson to this effect himself. 
"There is a report here that you have abandoned 
Fort Moultrie, spiked your guns, burned your car- 
riages and gone to Fort Sumter. It is not believed, 
as you had no orders to justify it. Say at once what 

25 could have given rise to such a story." 

The President was urged to take immediate ac- 
tion; he was told the probability was that the re- 
maining forts and the arsenal would be seized and 
garrisoned by South Carolina, and that Fort Sumter 

467 



Source Problems in United States History 

would be attacked; that if he would only say that 
he would replace matters as he had pledged himself 
that they should remain, there was yet time to 
remedy the mischief. The discussion was long and 

5 earnest. At first he seemed disposed to declare 
that he would restore the status, then hesitated, 
said he must call his Cabinet together ; he could not 
condemn Major Anderson unheard. He was told 
that nobody asked that ; only say that if the move 

10 had been made without a previous attack on An- 
derson he would restore the status. Assure us of 
that determination, and then take what time was 
necessary for consultation and information. That 
resolution telegraphed would restore confidence and 

IS enable the Commissioners to continue their negotia- 
tion. This he declined doing, and after adjourning 
his appointment to receive the Commissioners until 
the next day we left. On our way out we met Gen- 
eral Lane, Senators Bigler, Mallory, Yulie, and some 

20 others on their way to make the same remonstrance, 
for the news was over the city. Later in the day I 
saw him again, to show him some telegrams fuller in 
details. Senator Slidell was with him, but all that he 
did was to authorize me to telegraph that Anderson's 

25 movement was not only without but against his orders. 
12. Mr. Buchanan' s Administration, p. i8o. 

[President Buchanan's version of the interview 
with the South Carolina Commissioners, De- 
cember 28 th.] 

468 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

[The South Carolina Commissioners sent infor- 
mation to the President of Anderson's move to 
Sumter.] He received it with astonishment and 
regret. With astonishment, because he had be- 
5 lieved Major Anderson to be in security at Fort 
Moultrie; and this more especially whilst the com- 
missioners appointed but three days before were on 
their way to Washington. With regret, because 
this movement would probably impel the other cotton 

10 and border States into active sympathy with South 
Carolina, and thereby defeat the measures of com- 
promise still before the Committee of Thirteen of 
the Senate, from which he had hoped to confine 
secession to that State alone. The President never 

IS doubted for a moment that Major Anderson believed 
before the movement that he had ''the tangible 
evidence" of an impending attack required by his 
instructions. Still it was difficult to imagine that 
South Carolina would be guilty of the base perfidy 

20 of attacking any of those forts during the pendency 
of her mission to Washington, for the avowed pur- 
pose of preserving the peace and preventing colli- 
sion. Such treacherous conduct would have been 
considered infamous among all her sister States. 

25 She had always strenuously denied that such was 
her intention. 

In this state of suspense the President determined 
to await official information from Major Anderson 
himself. After its receipt, should he be convinced 

469 



Source Problems in United States History 

upon full examination that the Major, on a false 
alann, had violated his instructions, he might then 
think seriously of restoring for the present the 
former status quo of the forts. This, however, was 

5 soon known to be impossible, in consequence of the 
violent conduct of South Carolina in seizing all the 
other forts and public property in the harbor and 
city of Charleston. 

It was under these circumstances that the Presi- 

10 dent, on Friday, the 28th of December, held his first 
and only interview with the commissioners from 
South Carolina. He determined to listen with pa- 
tience to what they had to communicate, taking 
as little part himself in the conversation as civility 

IS would permit. On their introduction he stated that 
he could recognize them only as private gentlemen 
and not as commissioners from a Sovereign State; 
that it was to Congress, and to Congress alone, they 
must appeal. He, nevertheless, expressed his will- 

20 ingness to communicate to that body, as the only 
competent tribunal, any propositions they might 
have to offer. They then proceeded, evidently 
under much excitement, to state their grievances 
arising out of the removal of Major Anderson to 

25 Fort Sumter, and declared that for these they must 
obtain redress preliminary to entering upon the 
negotiation with which they had been intrusted; 
that it was impossible for them to make any proposi- 
tion until this removal should be satisfactorily ex- 

470 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

plained ; and they even insisted upon the immediate 
withdrawal of the Major and his troops, not only 
from Fort Sumter, but from the harbor of Charles- 
ton, as a sine qua non to any negotiation. . . . 
s 13. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, p. 
148. 
[Account of the same interview written in 187 1 
by James Orr, one of the South Carolina Com- 
missioners then present.] 
10 The Honorable R. W. Barnwell acted as the chair- 
man of the Commission. He brought to the atten- 
tion of the President the arrangement which had 
been made early in December, between him and the 
South Carolina delegation; that it had been ob- 
is served in good faith by the people of South Caro- 
lina, who could at any time, after the arrangement 
was made, up to the night when Major Anderson 
removed to Sumter, have occupied Fort Sumter and 
captured Moultrie with all its command; that the 
20 removal of Anderson violated that agreement on 
the part of the Government of the United States, 
and that the faith of the President and the Govern- 
ment had been thereby forfeited. The President 
made various excuses why he should be allowed 
25 time to decide the question whether Anderson should 
be ordered back to Moultrie and the former status 
restored. Mr. Barnwell pressed him with great zeal 
and earnestness to issue the order at once. Mr. 
Buchanan still hesitating, Mr. Barnwell said to him, 

471 



Source Problems in United States History 

at least three times during the interview: **But, 
Mr. President, your personal honor is involved in 
this matter; the faith you pledged has been violated ; 
and your personal honor requires you to issue the 

s order." . . . Mr. Buchanan, with great earnestness, 
said: **Mr. Barnwell, you are pressing me too im- 
portunately; you don't give me time to consider; 
you don't give me time to say my prayers. I 
always say my prayers when required to act upon 

10 any great state affair." 

14. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 3, 

[Reply of Major Anderson, December 27th, to 

a telegram from Secretary of War Floyd, asking 

if the news of his removal was correct.] 

15 The telegram is correct. I abandoned Fort 

Moultrie because I was certain that if attacked my 

men must have been sacrificed, and the command 

of the harbor lost. I spiked the guns and destroyed 

the carriages to keep the guns from being used 

20 against us. If attacked, the garrison would never 

have surrendered without a fight. 

15. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 109. 
[Letter sent December 28th by the South Caro- 
lina Commissioners to President Buchanan.] 

25 ... We have the honor to transmit to you a copy 
of the full powers from the Convention of the People 
of South Carolina, under which we are ** authorized 
and empowered to treat with the Government of 
the United States for the delivery of the forts, maga- 

472 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

zines, light -houses, and other real estate, with their 
appurtenances, within the limits of South Carolina; 
and also for an apportionment of the public debt 
and a division of all other property held by the 
5 Government of the United States as agent of the 
Confederated States, of which South Carolina was 
recently a member; and, generally, to negotiate as 
to all other measures and arrangements proper to 
be made and adopted in the existing relations of the 

10 parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity 
between this Commonwealth and the Government 
at Washington." [They conclude by saying that in 
view of Major Anderson's move, they cannot pro- 
ceed with their negotiations, and urge the immediate 

15 withdrawal of all troops from Charleston.] 
1 6, Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 115. 

[The President's reply to the above, December 
31st. The first draft of this letter was ma- 
terially strengthened on the advice of J. S. 

20 Black, Secretary of State.] 

[The President begins by saying that only Con- 
gress can deal with the whole question of secession. 
He denies that he made any pledge not to change the 
situation in Charleston, quoting the memorandum 
of December 9th, and his reservation. He continues] : 

25 This is the whole foundation for the alleged 
pledge. But I acted in the same manner as I would 
have done had I entered into a positive and formal 
agreement with parties capable of contracting, al- 

473 



Source Problems in United States History 

though such an agreement would have been on my 
part, from the nature of my official duties, impos- 
sible. The world knows that I have never sent any 
re-enforcements to the forts in Charleston Harbor, 
s and I have certainly never authorized any change 
to be made "in their relative military status." 
[Quotes order of December nth, to Anderson.] . . . 
Under these circumstances it is clear that Major 
Anderson acted upon his own responsibility, and 

10 without authority, unless, indeed, he had ''tangible 
evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act," 
on the part of the authorities of South Carolina, 
which has not yet been alleged. Still, he is a brave 
and honorable officer, and justice requires that he 

IS should not be condemned without a fair hearing. 

Be this as it may, when I learned that Major 

Anderson had left Fort Moultrie and proceeded to 

Fort Sumter, my first promptings were to command 

him to return to his former position, and there await 

20 the contingencies presented in his instructions. This 
could only have been done with any degree of safety 
to the command by the concurrence of the South 
Carolina authorities. But before any steps could pos- 
sibly have been taken in this direction, we received 

25 information, dated on the 28th instant, that the 
''palmetto flag floated out to the breeze at Castle 
Pinckney, and a large military force went over last 
night (the 27th) to Fort Moultrie." Thus the au- 
thorities of South Carolina, without waiting or ask- 

474 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

ing for any explanation, and doubtless believing, 
as you have expressed it, that the officer had acted 
not only without but against my orders, on the very 
next day after the night when the movement was 

> made, seized by a military force two of the three 
Federal forts in the harbor of Charleston, and have 
covered them under their own flag instead of that 
of the United States. ... It is under all these circum- 
stances that I am urged immediately to withdraw 

the troops from the harbor of Charleston, and am 
informed that without this, negotiation is imposs- 
ible. This I cannot do; this I will not do. Such 
an idea was never thought of by me in any pos- 
sible contingency. No allusion had ever been made 

IS to it in any communication between myself and any 
human being. But the inference is that I am bound 
to withdraw the troops from the only fort remaining 
in the possession of the United States in the harbor of 
Charleston, because the officer there in command of 

20 all the forts thought proper, without instructions, to 
change his position from one of them to another. I 
cannot admit the justice of any such inference. And 
at this point of writing I have received information 
by telegraph from Captain Humphreys, in command 

js of the arsenal at Charleston, that it "has to-day 
(Sunday, the 30th) been taken by force of arms." 
Comment is needless. It is estimated that the prop- 
erty of the United States in this arsenal was worth 
half a million dollars. 

475 



Source Problems in United States History 

After this information I have only to add that, 
whilst it is my duty to defend Fort Sumter as a por- 
tion of the public property of the United States 
against hostile attacks, from whatever quarter they 
5 may come, by such means as I may possess for this 
purpose, I do not perceive how such a defense can 
be construed into a menace against the city of 
Charleston. 

December 29th. Floyd resigns as Secretary of War, alleging 
10 that Anderson's move was a violation of a solemn pledge 

to South Carolina. 

17. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, p. 126. 

[W. P. Miles and L. M. Keitt, two of the South 
Carolina Congressmen present at the interview 
IS December 8th (extract 8 above) , gave their ver- 

sion of the interview, and their interpretation 
of the President's subsequent actions in a state- 
ment to the South Carolina Convention.] 
. . . When we rose to go the President said in 
20 substance, "After all, this is a matter of honor 
among gentlemen. I do not know that any paper 
or writing is necessary. We understand each 
other." . . . The President, in his letter to our com- 
missioners, tries to give the impression that our 
25 ''understanding" or "agreement" was not a 
. "pledge." We confess we are not sufificiently versed 
in the wiles of diplomacy to feel the force of this 
"distinction without a difference." . . . Suffice it to 
say that considering the President as bound in 

476 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

honor, if not by treaty stipulations, not to make 
any change in the forts or to send re-enforcements 
to them unless they were attacked, we of the dele- 
gation who were elected to the Convention felt 

5 equally bound in honor to do everything on our 
part to prevent any premature collision. . . . 
i8. Mr. Buchanan s Administration, p. 189. 

[The President's account of the attempt to 
reinforce Sumter, December 30th.] 

10 The President immediately decided to send re- 
enforcements; but he preferred to send them by 
the Brooklyn, which had remained in readiness for 
this service. ... In contradiction to this prompt ac- 
tion, it is difficult to imagine how the General [Scott] 

IS could have asserted, in his report to President Lin- 
coln, that ''the South Carolina commissioners had 
already been many days in Washington, and no 
movement of defence [on the part of the United 
States] had been permitted." ... At the interview 

20 with President Buchanan on the evening of the 31st 
December, the General seemed cordially to approve 
the matured plan of sending reenforcements by the 
Brooklyn. Why, then, the change in his opinion? 
At this interview the President informed him he 

25 had sent a letter but a few hours before to the 
South Carolina commissioners, in answer to a com- 
munication from them, and this letter would doubt- 
less speedily terminate their mission ; — ^that although 
he had refused to recognize them in an official char- 

477 



Source Problems in United States History 

acter, yet it might be considered improper to trans- 
mit the orders then in his possession to the Brooklyn 
until they had an opportunity of making a reply, 
and that the delay for this purpose could not, 

5 in his opinion, exceed forty-eight hours. In this 
suggestion the General promptly concurred, ob- 
serving that it was gentlemanly and proper. He, 
therefore, retained the orders to await the re- 
ply. On the morning of the 2d January the Presi- 

10 dent received and returned the insolent communi- 
cation of the South Carolina commissioners without 
an answer, and thus every obstacle was removed 
from the immediate transmission of the orders. In 
the mean time, however, the General had unluckily 

IS become convinced, after advising with an individual 
believed to possess much knowledge and practical 
experience in naval affairs, that the better plan to 
secure both secrecy and success would be to send 
to Fort Sumter a fast side-wheel mercantile steamer 

20 from New York with the two hundred and fifty 
recruits. . . . On the evening of the same day, how- 
ever, on which this ill-fated steamer went to sea, 
General Scott despatched a telegram ... to counter- 
mand her departure ; ^ but this did not [arrive] until 

25 after she had left the harbor. 

December 30th. South Carolina cuts off all supplies going 
to Fort Sumter. 

^ This was because word had just come that Anderson felt secure; 
and also that a battery had been erected which would keep out an 
30 unarmed vessel. 

478 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

January i, 1861. The South CaroHna Commissioners send 
a long reply to the President's letter of December 31st, 
charging that he had violated his pledge, and blaming him 
for the impending civil war. The President declines to re- 
ceive the letter. 
5 January 9th. The steamer Star of the West is fired on by 

South Carolina batteries and prevented from reaching 
Sumter. Major Anderson protests to Governor Pickens, de- 
manding a disavowal, calling it an act of war, and threaten- 
ing to prevent vessels from passing Sumter. The Governor 

10 replies, defending the right to secede, asserting that Major 

Anderson's move violated the President's pledge, and con- 
stituted an act of hostility against the State which justified 
firing on the Star of the West. Major Anderson answers 
that he has referred the matter to Washington, and will 

IS defer action. 

January nth. Major Anderson refuses the Governor's de- 
mand that he turn over the fort to the State, but agrees to 
send an officer to Washington in company with a represen- 
tative of the State. 

20 January 13th. Lieutenant Hall and Attorney-General 

Hayne of South Carolina reach Washington. 

19. Mr. Buchanan s Administration, pp. 194-196. 

[President Buchanan's account of the nego- 
tiations with Hayne and the Southern Sena- 
25 tors, January 13-31.] 

Thus, greatly to the surprise of the President, had 
a truce or suspension of arms been concluded between 
Major Anderson and Governor Pickens, to con- 
tinue, from its very nature, until he should again 
30 decide against the surrender of Fort Sumter. ... It 
is possible that, under the laws of war, the President 
might have annulled this truce after due notice to 
Governor Pickens. This, however, would have cast 

479 



Source Problems in United States History 

a serious reflection on Major Anderson for having 
concluded it, who, beyond question, had acted from 
the purest and most patriotic motives. Neither 
General Scott nor any other person, so far as is 

5 known, ever proposed to violate it. . . . 

Major Anderson may probably have committed 
an error in not promptly rejecting the demand, as 
he understood it, of Governor Pickens for the sur- 
render of Fort Sumter, instead of referring it to 

10 Washington. If the fort were to be attacked, which 
was then extremely doubtful, 'this was the propitious 
moment for a successful resistance. The Governor, 
though never so willing, was not in a condition to 
make the assault. He required time for prepara- 

15 tion. On the other hand, Major Anderson was then 
confident in his power to repel it. . . . Still, had 
Governor Pickens attacked the fort, this would have 
been the commencement of civil war between the 
United States and South Carolina. This every 

20 patriot desired to avoid as long as a reasonable hope 
should remain of preserving peace. And then such 
a hope did extensively prevail, founded upon the 
expectation that the Crittenden Compromise, or 
some equally healing measure, might be eventually 

25 adopted by Congress. How far this consideration 
may account for Major Anderson's forbearance when 
the Star of the West was fired upon, and for his pro- 
posal two days thereafter to refer the question of 
the surrender of the fort to Washington, we can 

480 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

only conjecture. If this were the cause, his motive 
deserves high commendation. ... 

The Senators from the cotton States yet in Con- 
gress appeared, strangely enough, to suppose that 
through their influence the President might agree 
not to send reenforcements to Fort Sumter, pro- 
vided Governor Pickens would stipulate not to at- 
tack it. By such an agreement they proposed to 
preserve the peace. But first of all it was necessary 
for them to prevail upon Colonel Hayne not to 
transmit the letter to the President on the day ap- 
pointed, because they well knew that the demand 
which it contained would meet his prompt and de- 
cided refusal. This would render the conclusion 
of such an agreement impossible. . . . 

January 13-31. Informal negotiations prevent the formal 
delivery of Governor Pickens' letter to the President. 
January Qth-February ist. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, 
Georgia, Louisiana and Texas secede. 
January 14th. The House Committee of Thirty-three re- 
ports a compromise. 

January i6th. The Crittenden Compromise in the Senate 
is seen to be hopeless. 

January 23d. Virginia calls for a Peace Convention. 
January 28th. South Carolina declines to attend it. 
January 31st. Hayne delivers Pickens' letter demanding 
the evacuation of Sumter. 

February 4th. The Peace Conference meets in Washington 
with Delegates from twenty-one States. The same day 
Delegates from six Cotton States meet at Montgomery, 
Alabama, to form a Southern Confederacy. 
481 



Source Problems in United States History 

20. Mr. Buchanan's Administration, p. 200. 

[Joseph Holt, Secretary of War, replies to 
Hayne's letter, February 6th.] 
Sir: The President of the United States has re- 

s ceived your letter of the 3 ist ultimo, and has charged 
me with the duty of replying thereto. 

In the communication addressed to the President 
by Governor Pickens, under date of the 12th Jan- 
uary, and which accompanies yours now before me, 

10 his Excellency says: **I have determined to send to 
you the Hon. I. W. Hayne, the Attorney-General of 
the State of South Carolina, and have instructed 
him to demand the surrender of Fort Sumter, in the 
harbor of Charleston, to the constituted authorities 

IS of the State of South Carolina. The demand I have 
made of Major Anderson, and which I now make 
of you, is suggested because of my earnest desire 
to avoid the bloodshed which a persistence in your 
attempt to retain the possession of that fort will 

20 cause, and which will be unavailing to secure to 
you that possession, but induce a calamity most 
deeply to be deplored." The character of the de- 
mand thus authorized to be made appears (under the 
influence, I presume, of the correspondence with 

25 the Senators to which you refer) to have been modi- 
fied by subsequent instructions of his Excellency, 
dated the 26th, and received by yourself on the 
30th January, in which he says: "If it be so that 
Fort Sumter is held as property, then, as property, 

482 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

the rights, whatever they may be, of the United 
States, can be ascertained, and for the satisfaction 
of these rights you are authorized to give the 
pledge of the State of South Carolina." The full 

s scope and precise purport of your instructions, as 
thus modified, you have expressed in the following 
words : " I do not come as a military man to demand 
the surrender of a fortress, but as the legal officer of 
the State — its attorney-general — to claim for the 

10 State the exercise of its undoubted right of eminent 
domain, and to pledge the State to make good all 
injury to the rights of property which arise from 
the exercise of the claim." And lest this explicit 
language should not sufficiently define your position, 

15 you add: ''The proposition now is that her (South 
Carolina's) law officer should, under authority of the 
Governor and his council, distinctly pledge the faith 
of South Carolina to make such compensation, in 
regard to Fort Sumter and its appurtenances and 

20 contents, to the full extent of the money value of 
the property of the United States, delivered over to 
the authorities of South Carolina by your command." 
You then adopt his Excellency's train of thought 
upon the subject, so far as to suggest that the pos- 

25 session of Fort Sumter by the United States, ''if 
continued long enough, must lead to collision," and 
that "an attack upon it would scarcely improve it 
as property, whatever the result; and if captured, 
it would no longer be the subject of account.'* 

32 483 



Source Problems in United States History 

The proposal, then, now presented to the Presi- 
dent, is simply an offer on the part of South Carolina 
to buy Fort Sumter and contents as property of the 
United States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, 

5 that if she is not permitted to make the purchase 
she will seize the fort by force of arms. As the initia- 
tion of a negotiation for the transfer of property be- 
tween friendly governments, this proposal impresses 
the President as having assumed a most unusual 

10 form. He has, however, investigated the claim on 
which it professes to be based, apart from the declara- 
tion that accompanies it. And it may be here re- 
marked, that much stress has been laid upon the 
employment of the words ''property" and "public 

IS property" by the President in his several messages. 
These are the most comprehensive terms which can 
be used in such a connection, and surely, when re- 
ferring to a fort or any other public establishment, 
they embrace the entire and undivided interest of 

20 the Government therein. 

The title of the United States to Fort Sumter is 
complete and incontestable. Were its interest in 
this property purely proprietary, in the ordinary ac- 
ceptation of the term, it might probably be subjected 

2s to the exercise of the right of eminent domain; but 
it has also political relations to it of a much higher 
and more imposing character than those of mere 
proprietorship. It has absolute jurisdiction over 
the fort and the soil on which it stands. This juris- 

484 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

diction consists in the authority to ''exercise exclusiv^e 
legislation" over the property referred to, and is 
therefore, clearly incompatible with the claim of 
eminent domain now insisted upon by South Caro- 
5 lina. This authority was not derived from any 
questionable revolutionary source, but from the 
peaceful cession of South Carolina herself, acting 
through her legislature, under a provision of the 
Constitution of the United States. South Carolina 

10 can no more assert the right of eminent domain 
over Fort Sumter than Maryland can assert it over 
the District of Columbia. The political and pro- 
prietary rights of the United States in either case 
rest upon precisely the same ground. 

IS The President, however, is relieved from the ne- 
cessity of further pursuing this inquiry by the fact 
that, whatever may be the claim of South Carolina 
to this fort, he has no constitutional power to cede 
or surrender it. The property of the United States 

20 has been acquired by force of public law, and can 
only be disposed of under the same solemn sanctions. 
The President, as the head of the executive branch 
of the government only, can no more sell and trans- 
fer Fort Sumter to South Carolina than he can sell 

25 and convey the Capitol of the United States to 
Maryland or to any other State or individual seek- 
ing to possess it. His Excellency the Governor is 
too familiar with the Constitution of the United 
States, and A^th the limitations upon the powers of 

485 



Source Problems in United States History 

the Chief Magistrate of the government it has es- 
tablished, not to appreciate at once the soundness 
of this legal proposition. . . . 
21. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, 

5 pp. 231-233. 

[Hayne's reply to Holt's letter, sent direct to 
the President, who read it and declined to re- 
ceive it, February 7th.] 
You . . . attempt to ridicule the proposal as sim- 

10 ply an offer on the part of South Carolina to buy 
Fort Sumter and contents as property of the United 
States, sustained by a declaration, in effect, that if 
she is not permitted to make the purchase, she will 
seize the fort by force of arms. It is difficult to 

15 consider this as other than intentional misconstruc- 
tion. You were told that South Carolina, as a 
separate, independent sovereignty, would not tol- 
erate the occupation, by foreign troops, of a miHtary 
post within her limits, but that inasmuch as you, in 

20 repeated messages and in your correspondence, had 
'laid much stress' upon the character of your duties, 
arising from considering forts as property, South 
Carolina, so far as this matter of property suggested 
by yourself was concerned, would make compensa- 

25 tion for all injury done the property, in the exer- 
cise of her sovereign right of eminent domain. And 
this your Secretary calls a proposal to purchase. The 
idea of purchase is entirely inconsistent with the 
assertion of the paramount right in the purchaser. 

486 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

I had supposed that an 'interest in property' as 
such, could be no other than 'purely proprietary,' 
and if I confined myself to this narrow view of your 
relations to Fort Sumter, you at least should not 

s consider it the subject of criticism. Until your let- 
ter of yesterday, you chose so to consider your rela- 
tions, in everything which you have written, or 
which has been written under your direction. 
It was precisely because you had yourself chosen 

lo to place your action upon the ground of 'purely 
proprietary' right, that the proposal of compensa- 
tion was made, and you now admit that in this view 
'it (Fort Sumter) would probably be subjected to 
the exercise of the right of eminent domain.* 

IS In your letter of yesterday (through your Secre- 
tary) you shift your position. You claim that your 
Government bears to Fort Sumter 'political relations 
of a much higher and more imposing character.' 
It was no part of my mission to discuss the 'political 

20 relations ' of the United States Government to any- 
thing within the territorial limits of South Carolina. 
South Carolina claims to have severed all political 
connection with your Government, and to have de- 
stroyed all political relations of your Government 

25 with everything within her borders. ... It is vain to 
ignore the fact that South Carolina is, to yours, a 
foreign Government, and how with this patent fact 
before you, you can consider the continued occu- 
pation of a fort in her harbor a pacific measure and 

487 



Source Problems in United States History 

parcel of a peaceful policy, passes certainly my 
comprehension. . . . 

February 12th. The Confederate Congress takes over 
from the States all questions as to Federal forts, etc. 

5 February 15th. President Davis is directed by Congress to 

secure possession of the Charleston forts by negotiation 
or force. Commissioners are appointed to negotiate a treaty 
with the United States settling all points in controversy. 
February 23d. Secretary Holt directs Major Anderson to 

10 continue to act in accordance with his original instructions. 

March 1-3. The Confederate Commissioners reach Wash- 
ington. 

March 4th. The United States Senate rejects the proposals 
of the Peace Convention. 

15 22. Abraham Lincoln, by J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, 
III, p. 332. 
[President Lincoln's declaration of policy in his 
inaugural address, March 4th.] 
... I therefore consider that, in view of the Con- 
20 stitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and 
to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the 
Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that 
the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all 
the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple 
25 duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so far as 
practicable, unless my rightful masters, the Ameri- 
can people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in 
some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I 
trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but 
30 only as the declared purpose of the Union that it 
will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. 

488 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or 
violence ; and there shall be none, unless it be forced 
upon the national authority. The power confided 
to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the 

5 property and places belonging to the Government, 
and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond 
what may be necessary for these objects, there will 
be no invasion, no using of force against or among 
the people anywhere. Where hostility to the 

10 United States, in any interior locality, shall be so 
great and universal as to prevent competent resi- 
dent citizens from holding the Federal offices, there 
will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers 
among the people for that object. While the strict 

IS legal right may exist in the Government to enforce 
the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so 
would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable 
withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time 
the uses of such offices. 

20 The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be fur- 
nished in all parts of the Union. . . . 
23. Mr. Buchanan s Administration, pp. 21 1-2 14. 
[Joseph Holt continued to act as Secretary of 
War for a day or two until Simon Cameron 

25 was confirmed. March 5th he wrote President 

Lincoln with regard to the military situation.] 
... An expedition has been quietly prepared and 
is ready to sail ... on a few hours notice for trans- 
porting troops and supplies to Fort Sumter. . . . The 

489 



Source Problems in United States History 

expedition, however, is not upon a scale approach- 
ing the seemingly extravagant estimates of Major 
Anderson and Captain Foster, now offered for the 
lirst time, and for the disclosures of wliich the Gov- 
5 emment was wholly unprepared. 

The declaration now made by the Major that he 
would not be willing to risk his reputation on an at- 
tempt to tlirow reenforcements into Charleston 
harbor, and with a \'iew of holding possession of the 

lo same, with a force of less than twenty thousand good 
and well-disciplined men. takes the Department by 
siu~prise, as his pre\'ious correspondence contained 
no such intimation. . . . 
24. Abraham Lincoln, by J. G. Nicolay and J. Hay, 

15 III, p. 380. 

[From the diary of Edward Bates, Attorney- 
General in the Lincoln Cabinet. March 9-1 0.] 
March 9, 1S61, Saturday night. ... A Cabinet 
coimcil upon the state of the countr}'. I was as- 

20 tonished to be informed that Fort Sumter, in Charles- 
ton harbor, must be evacuated, and that General 
Scott, General Totten, and Major Anderson conciu- 
in opinion, that as the place has but twenty-eight 
days' pro\dsion, it must be relieved, if at all, in that 

25 time; and that it ^^'ill take a force of twenty thousand 
men at least, and a bloody battle, to relieve it ! . . . 
Mr. Fox is anxious to risk his life in leading the re- 
lief, and Commodore Stringham seems equally con- 
fident of success. 

490 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

The naval men have convinced me fully that the 
thing can be done, and yet as the doing of it would 
be almost certain to begin the war, and as Charles- 
ton is of little importance as compared with the chief 
s points in the Gulf, I am willing to yield to the mili- 
tary counsel and evacuate Fort Sumter, at the same 
time strengthening the forts in the Gulf so as to 
look dowTi opposition, and guarding the coast with 
all our naval power, if need be. so as to close any 
10 port, at pleasure. 

And to this effect I gave the President my written 
opinion on the i6th of March. 

March 12th. General Scott formally recommends the 

evacuation of Sumter. W. H. Seward, Secretary of State, 

15 refuses an interview with the Confederate Commissioners. 

25. Rebellion Record, Frank Moore, editor, I, docs. 
426-428. 
[Letter of Justice J. A. Campbell, of the Su- 
preme Court, to Secretary of State W. H. 
20 Seward, dated April 13th. This reviews the 

activities of Campbell as intermediary between 
Seward and the Confederate Commissioners 
from March 14th to April Sth.] 
Sir: — On the 15th March ult., I left with Judge 
-\=5 Crawford, one of the Commissioners of the Con- 
federate States, a note in writing to the effect 
following : 

'I feel entire confidence that Fort Sumter will be 
evacuated in the next ten days. And this measure 

491 



Source Problems in United States History 

is felt as imposing great responsibility on the ad- 
ministration. 

'I feel entire confidence that no measure changing 
the existing status, pre judiciously to the Southern 
s Confederate States, is at present contemplated. 
'I feel an entire confidence that an immediate de- 
mand for an answer to the communication of the 
Commissioners will be productive of evil, and not of 
good. I do not believe that ft ought at this time 

10 to be pressed.' 

The substance of this statement I communicated 
to you the same evening by letter. Five days 
elapsed, and I called with a telegram from Gen. 
Beauregard, to the effect that Sumter was not 

15 evacuated, but that Major Anderson was at work 
making repairs. 

The next day, after conversing with you, I com- 
municated to Judge Crawford, in writing, that the 
failure to evacuate Sumter was not the result of bad 

20 faith, but was attributable to causes consistent with 
the intention to fulfil the engagement ; and that as re- 
garded [Fort] Pickens, I should have notice of any de- 
sign to alter the existing status there. Mr. Justice 
Nelson was present at these conversations, three in 

25 number, and I submitted to him each of my written 
communications to Judge Crawford, and informed 
Judge C. that they had his (Judge Nelson's) sanction. 
I gave you, on the 2 2d March, a substantial copy 
of the statement I had made on the 15th. 

492 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

The 30th of March arrived, and at that time a 
telegram came from Go\^. Pickens inquiring concern- 
ing Col. Lamon, whose visit to Charleston he sup- 
posed had a connection with the proposed evacua- 
5 tion of Fort Sumter. 

I left that with you, and was to have an answer 
the following Monday, (ist April.) On the ist of 
April I received from you the statement in writing, 
*I am satisfied the Government will not undertake 

10 to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to 
Gov. Pickens.' The words 'I am satisfied' were for 
me to use as expressive of confidence in the re- 
mainder of the declaration. 

The proposition, as originally prepared, was, 

IS 'The President may desire to supply Sumter, but 
will not do so,' etc., and your verbal explanation 
was that you did not believe any such attempt would 
be made, and that there was no design to reinforce 
Sumter. 

20 There was a departure here from the pledges of 
the previous month, but with the verbal explanation 
I did not consider it a matter then to complain of — 
I simply stated to you that I had that assurance 
previously. 

25 On the 7th of April, I addressed you a letter on 
the subject of the alarm that the preparations by 
the Government had created, and asked you if the 
assurances I had given were well or ill founded. In 
respect to Sumter, your reply was, 'Faith as to 

493 



Source Problems in United States History 

Sumter, fully kept — wait and see.' In the morning's 
paper I read, 'An authorized messenger from Presi- 
dent Lincoln informed Gov. Pickens and Gen. 
Beauregard, that provisions will be sent to Fort 
5 Sumter peaceably, or otherwise by force.' 

This was the 8th of April, at Charleston, the day 
following your last assurance, and is the evidence 
of the full faith I was invited to wait for and see. In 
the same paper I read that intercepted despatches 

10 disclose the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed 
to visit Major Anderson, on the pledge that his pur- 
pose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise 
a plan for supplying the fort by force, and that this 
plan had been adopted by the Washington Govem- 

15 ment, and was in process of execution. 

My recollection of the date of Mr. Fox's visit 
carries it to a day in March. I learn he is a near 
connection of a member of the Cabinet. 

My connection with the Commissioners and your- 

20 self was superinduced by a conversation with Jus- 
tice Wilson. He informed me of your strong dis- 
position in favor of peace, and that you were op- 
pressed with a demand of the Commissioners of the 
Confederate States for a reply to their first letter, 

25 and that you desired to avoid, if possible, at that 
time. I told him I might, perhaps, be of some ser- 
vice in arranging the difficulty. I came to your 
office entirely at his request, and without the knowl- 
edge of the Commissioners. Your depression was 

494 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

obvious to both Judge Nelson and myself. I was 
gratified at the character of the counsels you were 
desirous of pursuing, and much impressed with your 
observation that a civil war might be prevented by 
5 the success of my mediation. You read a letter of 
Mr. Weed, to show how irksome and responsible 
the withdrawal of troops from Fort Sumter was. 
A portion of my communication to Judge Crawford 
on the 15th of March, was founded upon these re- 

10 marks, and the pledge to evacuate Sumter is less 
forcible than the words you employed. Those words 
were, 'Before this letter reaches you, (a proposed 
letter by me to President Davis), Sumter will have 
been evacuated.' 

IS The Commissioners who received those communi- 
cations conclude they have been abused and over- 
reached. The Montgomery Government hold the 
same opinion. . . . 

March 15th. President Lincoln asks written opinions from 
20 his Cabinet on the advisability of provisioning Sumter, 

assuming it to be possible. Seward, Cameron, Welles, 
Smith and Bates advise against provisioning; Blair ap- 
proves; Chase approves conditionally 

26. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, 
25 pp. 349-353- 

[Arguments against relieving Sumter as set forth 
by Secretary Seward in his reply to the Presi- 
dent, March 15 th.] 
... If it were possible to peacefully provision 

495 



Source Problems in United States History 

Fort Sumter, of course I should answer that it would 
be both unwise and inhuman not to attempt it. 
But the facts of the case are known to be that the 
attempt must be made with the employment of a 

s military and marine force, which would provoke 
combat and probably initiate a civil war, which the 
Government of the United States would be com- 
mitted to maintain through all changes to some 
definitive conclusion. ... If it be indeed true that 

10 pacification is necessar}^ to prevent dismemberment 
of the Union, and civil war, or either of them, no 
patriot and lover of humanity could hesitate to sur- 
render party for the higher interests of country and 
humanity. 

IS Partly by design, partly by chance, this policy 
has been hitherto pursued by the late administration 
of the Federal Government and by the Republican 
party in its corporate action. It is by this policy, 
thus pursued, I think, that the progress of dismem- 

20 berment has been arrested after the seven Gulf 
States had seceded and the border States yet remain, 
although they do so uneasily, in the Union. 

It is to a perseverance in this policy for a short 
time longer, that I look as the only peaceful means 

2s of assuring the continuance of Virginia, Maryland, 
North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and 
Arkansas, or most of those States, in the Union. It 
is through their good and patriotic offices, that I 
look to see the Union sentiment re\'ived, and brought 

496 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

once more into activity in the seceding States, and 
through this agency, those States themselves return- 
ing into the Union. ... 

i may be asked whether I would in no case and 
s at no time advise force — ^whether I purpose to give 
up everything. I reply, no. I would not initiate 
a war to regain a useless and unnecessary position 
on the soil of the seceding States. I would not pro- 
voke war in any way now. I would resort to force 

10 to protect the collection of the revenue, because 
that is a necessary as well as legitimate public 
object. Even then, it should be only a naval 
force that I would employ for that necessary pur- 
pose, while I would defer military action on land 

IS until a case should arise where we would hold the 
defensive. 

In that case, we should have the spirit of the 
country and the approval of mankind on our side. 
In the other, we should peril peace and union, be- 

20 cause we had not the courage to practice prudence 
and moderation at the cost of temporary misap- 
prehension. . . . 
27. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, 

P- 358. 

25 [Arguments in favor of provisioning Sumter as 

stated in Postmaster-General Blair's letter to 

the President, March 15th.] 

In reply to your interrogatory whether in my 

opinion it is wise to provision Fort Sumter under 

497 



Source Problems in United States History 

present circumstances, I submit the following con- 
sideration in favor of provisioning that fort. 

The ambitious leaders of the late Democratic 

party have availed themselves of the disappoint- 

5 ment attendant upon defeat in the late presidential 

election to found a military government in the 

seceding States. 

To the connivance of the late administration, it is 
due alone that this rebellion has been enabled to 
10 attain its present proportions. . . . 

It is obvious that rebellion was checked in 1833 
by the promptitude of the President in taking meas- 
ures which made it manifest that it could not be 
attempted with impunity, and that it has grown 
IS to its present formidable proportions only because 
similar measures were not taken. 

The action of the President in 1833 inspired re- 
spect, whilst in i860 the rebels were encouraged by 
the contempt they felt for the incumbent of the 
20 Presidency. . . . 

28. History of the United States, by J. F. Rhodes, 

III, p. 333, note 3. 

[About March 25th Ward Lamon, an intimate 

friend of the President, visited Charleston at 

25 Lincoln's request. April ist the President sent 

word, through Seward to Campbell, that Lamon 

was not authorized to give any assurances for 

the Administration. Governor Pickens had 

understood differently, as appears from the fol- 

498 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

lowing letter printed in the Charleston Courier y 

August 6, 1 86 1.] 

I know the fact from Mr. Lincoln's most intimate 

friend and accredited agent, Mr. Lamon, that the 

s President of the United States professed a desire 

to evacuate Fort Sumter, and he (Mr. Lamon) 

actually wrote me, after his return to Washington, 

that he would be back in a few days to aid in that 

purpose. 

10 March 29th. Meeting of the Cabinet at which Seward and 

Smith oppose an attempt to provision Sumter, Chase, Welles 
and Blair favor it, and Bates is non-committal. 

29. Genesis of the Civil War, by S. W. Crawford, 

P- 365- 
15 [Letter of Postmaster-General Blair to S. W. 

Crawford May 6, 1882, describing the decision 
made March 30, 1861, to provision Sumter.] 
General Scott, in the belief that the surrender of 
Fort Sumter had been determined upon, wrote to 
20 the President that it was necessary to surrender 
Fort Pickens also. 

This letter was written on the day fixed for the 
final action on the question, whether Sumter should 
be surrendered. But contrary to the President's 
25 previous intention, he did not decide the question 
at the Cabinet meeting that day. After dinner the 
President called the members out of the room where 
he had dined with them, and in an agitated manner 
read Scott's letter, which he seemed just to have 

499 



Source Problems in United States History 

received. An oppressive silence followed. At last 
I said, **Mr. President, you can now see that General 
Scott, in advising the siu-render of Fort Sumter, 
is playing the part of a politician, not of a general, 

5 for as no one pretends that there is any military 
necessity for the surrender of Fort Pickens, which 
he now says it is equally necessary to surrender, it. 
is believed that he is governed by political reasons 
in both recommendations." 

10 No answer could be made to this point, and the 
President saw that he was misled, and immediately 
ordered the reinforcement of Fort Sumter. It is 
impossible to exaggerate the importance and merit 
of this act. It was an irrevocable decision that the 

IS Union should be maintained by force of arms.^ 
30. Abraham Lincoln's Complete Works, J. G. 
Nicolay and J. Hay, editors, II, p. 56. 
[President Lincoln's message to Congress, July 
4, 1 86 1, explaining his reasons for deciding to 

20 attempt to provision Sumter.] 

... It was believed, however, that so to abandon 
that position, under the circumstances, would be 
utterly ruinous; that the necessity under which it 
was to be done would not be fully understood; that 

2s by many it would be construed as a part of a volun- 
tary poHcy; that at home it. would discourage the 

1 This was not a formal meeting of the Cabinet. There were 
present besides the President, Secretary Welles, Secretary Blair, 
Captain Fox of the Navy, and George Harrington, Assistant 
30 Secretary of the Treasury. 

500 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and 
go far to ensure to the latter a recognition abroad; 
that, in fact, it would be our national destruction 
consummated. This could not be allowed. Star- 
s vation w^as not yet upon the garrison, and ere it 
would be reached Fort Pickens ^ might be reinforced. 
This last would be a clear indication of policy, and 
would better enable the country to accept the 
evacuation of Fort Sumter as a military necessity. 

10 An order was at once directed to be sent for the 
landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn 
into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, 
but must take the longer and slower route by sea. 
The first return news from the order was received 

IS just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The 
news itself was that the officer commanding the 
Sabine, to which vessel the troops had been trans- 
ferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi 
armistice of the late administration (and of the 

20 existence of which the present administration, up 
to the time the order was despatched, had only too 
vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had 
refused to land the troops. To now reinforce Fort 
Pickens before a crisis would be reached at Fort 

2S Sumter was impossible — ^rendered so by the near 

* At Pensacola,Florida. President Buchanan had sent reinforce- 
ments, but had ordered them to remain on board ship, and not to 
land unless the fort was attacked. This was at the request of the 
State authorities, who promised not to assault the fort so long as 
30 the status quo was maintained. 

SOI 



Source Problems in United States History 

exhaustion of provisions in the latter-named fort. In 
precaution against such a conjuncture, the govern- 
ment had, a few days before, commenced preparing 
an expedition as well adapted as might be to reUeve 

s Fort Sumter, which expedition was intended to be 
ultimately used, or not, according to circumstances. 
The strongest anticipated case for using it was now 
presented, and it was resolved to send it forward. 
31. Official Records, Series I, Vol. I, pp. 301, 31, 12. 

10 [Telegrams and reports connected with the at- 

tack on Fort Sumter and its surrender.] 

Charleston, April 11, 1861. 
Hon. L. P. Walker, Secretary of War: 

Major Anderson replies: ''I have the honor to 
IS acknowledge the receipt of your communication de- 
manding the evacuation of this fort, and to say in 
reply thereto that it is a demand with which I re- 
gret that my sense of honor and of my obligations 
to my Government prevent my compliance." He 
20 says verbally : "I will await the first shot, and if you 
do not batter us to pieces we will be starved out in 
a few days." 
Answer. G. T. Beauregard. 

Montgomery, April 11, i86i- 
25 General Beauregard, Charleston: 

Do not desire needlessly to bombard Fort Sumter. 
If Major Anderson will state the time at which, as 
indicated by him, he will evacuate, and agree that 

502 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

in the mean time he will not use his guns against us 
unless ours should be employed against Fort Sumter, 
you are authorized thus to avoid the effusion of 
blood. If this or its equivalent be refused, reduce 
5 the fort as your judgment decides to be most prac- 
ticable L. P. Walker. 

Washington, April ii, 1861. 
General G. T. Beauregard: 
The Tribune of to-day declares the main object 
10 of the expedition to be the relief of Sumter, and 
that a force will be landed which will overcome all 
opposition. Roman 

Crawford 
Forsyth 

IS Charleston, S. C, April 11, 1861. 

Roman, Crawford and Forsyth, 

Commissioners Confederate States, Washington, 

D. C: 
Evacuation of Fort Sumter will be demanded to- 
20 day. If refused, hostilities will commence tonight. 
Answer. G. T. Beauregard. 

Headquarters Provisional Army, 
Charleston, S. C, April 27, 1861. 

Sir: I have the honor to submit the following 
25 detailed report of the bombardment and surrender 
of Fort Sumter and the incidents connected there- 
with: . . . 

S03 



Source Problems in United States History 

At II p.m. I sent my aides with a communication 
to Major Anderson based on the foregoing instruc- 
tions. It was placed in his hands at 12:45 a.m. 
12th instant. He expressed his willingness to 

s evacuate the fort on Monday at noon if provided 
with the necessary means of transportation, and if 
he should not receive contradictory instructions from 
his Government or additional supplies, but he de- 
clined to agree not to open his guns upon us in the 

10 event of any hostile demonstrations on our part 
against his flag. This reply, which was opened and 
shown to my aides, plainly indicated that if instruc- 
tions should be received contrary to his purpose to 
evacuate, or if he should receive his supplies, or if 

IS the Confederate troops should fire on hostile troops 
of the United States, or upon transports bearing the 
United States flag, containing men, munitions, and 
supplies designed for hostile operations against us, 
he would still feel himself bound to fire upon us, and 

20 to hold possession of the fort. 

As in consequence of a communication from the 
President of the United States to the governor of 
South Carolina, we were in momentary expectation 
of an attempt to re-enforce Fort Sumter, or of a 

25 descent upon our coast to that end from the United 
States fleet then lying at the entrance of the har- 
bor, it was manifestly an imperative necessity to 
reduce the fort as speedily as possible, and not to 
wait until the ships and the fort should unite in a 

504 



Fort Sumter and Outbreak of the Civil War 

combined attack upon us. Accordingly my aides, 
carrying out my instructions, promptly refused to 
accede to the terms proposed by Major Anderson, 
and notified him in writing that our batteries would 
5 open upon Fort Sumter in one hour. . . . 

G. T. Beauregard, 
Brigadier-General Commanding. 
Brigadier-General Cooper, 
Adjutant-General, C.S.A. 

10 Steamship "Baltic" off Sandy Hook, 

-April i8, 1861 — 10:30 A.M. — via New York. 

Having defended Fort Sumter for thirty-four 

hours, until the quarters were entirely burned, the 

main gates destroyed by fire, the gorge walls serious- 

15 ly injured, the magazine surrounded by flames, and 

its door closed from the effects of heat, four barrels 

and three cartridges of powder only being available, 

and no provisions remaining but pork, I accepted the 

terms of evacuation offered by General Beauregard, 

20 being the same offered by him on the nth instant, 

prior to the commencement of hostilities, and 

marched out of the fort Sunday afternoon, the 

14th instant, with colors flying and drums beating, 

bringing away company and private property, and 

25 saluting my flag with fifty guns. 

Robert Anderson, 
Major, First Artillery, Commanding, 
Hon. S. Cameron, 

Secretary of War, Washington. 
505 



INDEX 



Abolition, effect of, 423. 

Act for Preserving the Protestant 
Religion, 204, 231. 

Act of Toleration, i68g, 184, 202, 
204 note, 221, 223, 224, 228, 
230, 232. 

Adams, Henry, 281. 

Adams, John, Works, 128; ex- 
cerpts from 139. 

Adams, John Quincy, 275, 277; 
Writings, excerpts from, 324- 
325; Memoirs, excerpts from, 

353-354. 

Adams, Mrs. Hannah, deposition, 
44. 

Adams, Samuel, Writings, 62; 
excerpts from, 92-93. 

Albemarle County, 221. 

Amelia County, 221, 232, 247. 

American Criminal Trials, 129; 
excerpts from, 143-147. 

American government, funda- 
mental principles of, 57-59. 

American State Papers, 282; ex- 
cerpts from, 326-328, 335-337- 

Anderson, Maj. Robert, 453, 
464, 467-470, 472, 474. 479- 
480, 502-505; instructions to, 
462. 

Anne, Queen, 218, 223, 228, 231. 

Ashe, J., 147. 

Atlantic Monthly, 8; excerpts 
from, 23. 

Avery, Dr. Benjamin, 223. 

Axford, James, 214. 



B 

Bacon's Abridgment, 140. 
Bancroft, George, History, 281; 

excerpts from, 310-312. 
Baptists, 185, 188-189, 192-193, 

231-232, 237, 255. 
Barnwell, Cal., 466, 471. 
Barrett, Rev. Mr., 226. 
Bateman, John, deposition, 35. 
Bayard and Wife vs. Singleton, 

147. 
Beauregard, Gen., 492, 494, 502, 

503, 505. 

Bellamy, Mr., 194. 

Benton, Thomas H., 275, 276, 
278, 281, 330 note i; speeches 
of, 307, 312, 325-326, 337- 
345, 358, 363-365. 

Bishop of London, 185, 195, 214, 
217, 219, 224, 230. 

Black, J. S,, opinion as attorney- 
general, 452, 473. 

Blackstone, Sir William, 174. 

Blair, Chancellor, 143. 

Blair, Postmaster-General, 497, 
499. 

Bonham, Dr., case of, 140. 

Boston, 250. 

Bradford, William, 232. 

Brown, Zachariah, desposition, 
44. 

Buchanan, President James, 466, 
467, 471-472, 473. 476-478; 
Mr. Buchanan's Administra- 
tion, 444; excerpts from, 459, 
477, 479. 482, 489; message, 



507 



Source Problems in United States History 



456-459; interview with Con- 
gressmen, 459. 



Calhoun, John C, Works, 374; 

excerpts from, 409-414; on 

slavery, 409. 
Call, Daniel, Reports of Cases, 

129; excerpts from, 141. 
Camden, Lord, speech, 86; Letter 

of Massachusetts House, 93. 
Campbell, Justice J. A., Letter 

of, 491. 
Caroline County, 244. 
Caton vs. Commonwealth, 141. 
Cennick, Mr., 221. 
Chandler, Peleg W., American 

Criminal Trials, 129; excerpts 

from, 143-147. 
Channing, William E., Works, 

374; excerpts from, 397-409; 

on slavery, 397; attacks Clay's 

attitude on, 405-406. 
Chase, Chief Justice, 178 
Church, the, and slavery, 437. 
Clay, Henry, 275 note i, 277, 

330 note I, 333 note i, 338, 

354. 394, 405, 406, 407; Life 

and Speeches, 374; excerpts 

from, 394-397. 
Cobb, Howell, 214. 
Cocke, Benjamin, 214. 
Coercion of a state, 446, 459. 
Coke, Lord, 126, 140. 
Concord, claims honor of first 

armed resistance, 4, 45. 
Confederate Commissioners, 488, 

491, 494, 495, 503. 
Cooper, Benjamin and Rachel, 

deposition, 44. 
Crawford, Judge, 491, 492. 
Crawford, S. W., Genesis of the 

Civil War, 444; excerpts from, 

465, 471, 486, 495, 497. 
Curtis, G. T., Life of James 

Buchanan, 445; excerpts from, 

448, 452, 456. 



Cushing, H. A., editor, The 
Writings of Samuel Adams, 62. 



Dallas, A. J., Reports of Cases, 
131; excerpts from, 176-178. 

Dane, Nathan, 357. 

Davies, Samuel, 186, 189, 194- 
195, 212, 215-221, 223-224, 
231; State of Religion, excerpt 
from, 212. 

Davis, Jefferson, 466, 495. 

Davis, Thomas, deposition, 44. 

Dawson, Thomas, 230. 

Dawson, William, 214, 217. 

D'Bernicre, Ensign, 8, 22. 

Debates and other Proceedings of 
the Convention of Virginia, 279- 
280; excerpts from, 299-307. 

Declaration of Rights, 190, 236, 
253, 257 note, 258 note, 262. 

Democracy, 192, 267, 275, 365; 
on frontier, 370. 

Dew, Thomas R., and slavery, 
373; and Jefferson, 391; Re- 
view of the Debate, etc., 373- 
374; excerpts from, 384-394. 

Diary of a British officer, 8, 

23- 

Dickinson, John, Writings, 63; 
excerpts from, 94-98; [Dicken- 
son], 168. 

Dinwiddle, Robert, 219. 

Dissenters, 183-184, 187, 190, 
216, 218, 222, 225-226. 

Dissertation on Slavery, etc., 373; 
excerpts from, 381-384. 

Documents relating to New Eng- 
land Federalism, 2S1; excerpts 
from, 322-324. 

Doddridge, Dr., 216, 218. 

Draper, William, deposition, 34. 



Eckenrode, H. J., 196. 
Edwards, Governor, 277. 



508 



Index 



Edwards, Jonathan, i86. 

Elliot, Jonathan, 280. 

Ellsworth, Oliver, 169. 

Emancipation, in the West In- 
dies, 412; effect of, in the 
United States, 413; difficulty 
of, 425. 

Emigration, 270-272, 278, 279, 
303, 305-306, 312, 322, 324, 
326, 330 note, 335, 339, 348, 
350-352, 355, 357, 361, 364. 

English toleration act, 156. 

Essex County, 246. 

EstabHshed Church, 186-187, 
190. 

Ewing, 339, 351, 352 note i. 



Farrand, Max, editor, Records of 
the Federal Convention, 130, 
281; excerpts from, 316. 

Federalist, A Commentary on the 
Constitution, etc., 130-131; ex- 
cerpts from, 170-174. 

Fessenden, Thomas, deposition, 

34. 

Finley, S., 213. 

Floyd, Secretary, 402, 465, 476. 

Foot, Senator, 278^ 

Force's Archives, 6, 7, 8; ex- 
cerpts from, 13, 14, 24. 

Ford, P. L., editor, The Writings 
of John Dickinson, 63; ex- 
cerpts from, 94-98; editor, 
The Federalist, 131, excerpt 
from, 170; editor. Writings of 
Jefferson, 196. 

Ford, Worthington C, 282, 324. 

Fox, 494, 500 note. 

Franklin, Benjamin, Examina- 
tion, 81-85; comment on 
Dickinson, 98 note, 342. 



Gage, Governor, 7, 8, 9, 26, 2^. 
Gardoqui, 269, 293. 



Gentleman* s Magazine, 62; ex- 
cerpt from, 88-92. 

Gerard, 269. 

Germans, in Pennsylvania, 370. 

Gerry, Elbridge, 163, 281, 320- 
322. 

Gist, Governor, 455, 456. 

Gooch, Governor, 188, 194; let- 
ters of, 205-206; charge to 
Grand Jury, 206-212. 

Goochland County, 222. 

Gordon, Rev. William, 7, 11, 36. 

Gould, Lieutenant, deposition, 
36. 

Gray, Horace, editor, 129, 139. 

Grayson, William, 269 note i, 
280, 281, 294, 299, 301, 304- 
306, 310-312, 314, 355. 

Great Awakening, 186-187. 

Greeley, Horace, American Con- 
flict, 451. 

Grenville, George, speech, 80. 

H 

Hamilton, Alexander, 127, 170, 

325. 
Hamilton, Stanislaus Murray, 

279. 
Hanover County, 219, 221, 226- 

227. 
Hanover, Presbytery of, 238. 
Harper, William, Memoir on 

Slavery, 374; excerpt from, 414- 

425; Slavery is capital, 415. 
Harrington, Jonathan, 54. 
Harrington, Levi, 39; deposi- 
. tion, 34. 
Harris and Johnson, Reports of 

Cases, etc., 12)2; excerpts from, 

178-179. 
Hayne, L W., 479, 480, 481, 482, 

486. 
Hayne, Senator, 278, 328, 354. 
Henrico County, 221. 
Henry, Patrick, 191, 280; Life, 

etc., by William Wert Henry, 

60; Patrick Henry, by M. C. 



509 



Source Problems in United States History 



Tyler, 60; excerpts from, 73- 

75. 
Historical Collections relating to 

American Colonial Church, 195; 

excerpts from, 214, 216, 221, 

230. 
Historical Magazine, 9; excerpt 

from, 53. 
History of the Formation of the 

Constitution, etc., 281; ex- 
cerpts from, 310-312. 
History of the Rise and Progress 

of the Baptists in Virginia, 196; 

excerpt from, 255. 
Hobart, Lord, 140. 
Holmes, 309, 315. 
Holt, Joseph, Secretary of War, 

482, 489. 
Holt, Lord, 140. 
Hopkins, Joshua, 141. 
Hunt, 277, 334. 
Hutchinson, Governor Thomas, 

126; speech, 99-104, 11 2-1 16. 



Industry, depends on slavery, 435. 

Iredell, James, Life and Corre- 
spondence, etc., 130; excerpts 
from, 151-163. 

Itinerant Preachers, 186, 188- 
189, 218-221, 224, 226-227, 247. 

J 

Jackson, 354. 

Jay, John, 269, 292, 297, 308, 

358. 
Jefferson, Thomas, 192, 193, 243; 

and slavery, 379, 391, 392; 

Works, 373; excerpts from, 

379-381. 
Johnson, Thomas C, editor, Life 

of Palmer, 374; excerpt from, 

432. 
Journal of the House of Delegates 
of Virginia, etc., 195; excerpts 
from, 239, 244. 



Journals of the House of Bur- 
gesses of Virginia, 195; excerpts 
from, 231, 232. 



Keitt, L. M., 476. 

King, Rufus, 164, 308, 321-322. 



Laborer, the free, for guarantees, 
419; always a slave, 417. 

Lamb, John, 141. 

Lamon, Ward, 493, 498, 499. 

Law of Nations, etc., 72 note, 
128, 145; excerpts from, 137- 

139- 
Lee, Richard Henry, 191. 
Lee, Samuel, testimony, 38. 
Liberia, 426. 
Life and Correspondence of .George 

Mason, 195; excerpts from, 236. 
Life and Correspondence of James 

Iredell, etc., 130; excerpts 

from, 151-163. 
Lincoln, Abraham, on slavery, 

425; inaugural, 488; Speeches, 

374; excerpts from, 425-427. 
Livingstone, Henry W,, 322. 
Locke, John, 87, 143; [Lock], 249. 
Lunenburg County, 231. 
Lyttelton, Lord, speech, 85. 

M 

Madison, James, 192, 193, 232, 
275, 280-281, 300-302, 308, 
310; Notes, 130, 163, 164, 
165 and Note, 167; Writings, 
195; excerpts from, 232-235, 
256-260. 

Mahomed, 239. 

Mansfield, Lord, speech, 86. 

Manufactures, 273, 295, 342- 
345, 353, 361. 

Marr, James, testimony, 38. 

Marshall, John, 127. 



510 



Index 



Martin, Francis Xavier, North 
Carolina Reports, etc., 129. 

Martin, Luther, 165, 166. 

Mason, George, 166, 195, 317, 
318; Life, excerpts from, 236. 

Massachusetts Committee of 
Safety, 6, 7, 14. 

Massachusetts Council, Answer 
to Hutchinson, 104, 116, 117. 

Massachusetts Governor's 
speeches, 99-104, 11 2-1 16. 

Massachusetts Historical Society, 
Proceedings, 8, 15; Collections, 
8, 22. 

Massachusetts House of Repre- 
sentatives, Memorial, 71; Let- 
ter to Shelburne, 92 ; to Rock- 
ingham, 92; to Camden, 93; 
Circular Letter, 94; Answer to 
Hutchinson, 108, 118. 

Massachusetts Provincial Con- 
gress, 7, 8, 26. 

Massachusetts State Papers, 62; 
excerpts from, 94, 99-122. 

Mauduit, Jasper, 138. 

McClure, J. B., editor, Abraham 
Lincoln's Speeches, 374, 425. 

Mead, Levi, deposition, 34. 

Memoirs of John Quincy Adams, 
282; excerpts from, 353-354- 

Memorial History of Boston, 8, 19, 

Menomists, 254. 

Mercer, John Francis, 168. 

Methodists, 219. 

Miles, W. P., editor, 476. 

Mississippi River, 268-269, 280, 
292-293, 298, 301, 305, 309- 
310, 320. 

Monroe, James, 192, 299, 307- 
308, 314; Writings, 279-280; 
excerpts from, 292-299. 

Monument at Lexington, 53. 

Moore, Frank, editor, Rebellio7i 
Record, 491. 

Morris, Gouverneur, 168, 269, 
316, 318-319. 322. 

Morris, Samuel, 194; account 
of Presbyterians, 212-213. 



Munro, Ebenezer, 49, 50. 
Munro, Nathan, deposition, 52. 
Munro, Sergt. William, deposi- 
tion, 47. 

N 

Narrative of the Excursion and 
Ravages of the King's Troops, 
8, 40. 

Nelson, Judge, 492, 495. 

Newcastle, Presbytery of, 212. 

New Kent County, 231. 

New York Tribune, 446. 

Nicholas, Robert Carter, 243. 

Nicolay and Hay, editors, Abra- 
ham Lincoln, Complete Works, 
445; excerpts from, 500. 

Niles, H., editor, Principles and 
Acts of the Revolution in 
America, etc., 61; excerpts 
from, 75-76. 

North Carolina Reports, etc., 129; 
excerpts from, 147-148. 

Nugent, Lord Clare, speech, 76. 

Nullification, 449, 463. 

O 

Orr, James, 471. 

Otis, James, 62, 128, 137 note i, 

140, 141; Rights of the British 

Colonies, 60; excerpts from, 

69-72. 
Outrages by British Troops, 24, 

25, 27, 28, 41, 43, 44. 



Palmer, Benjamin Morgan, Life 
of, 374; excerpts from, 432- 
436; on slavery, 432. 

Parker, Capt. John, 9, 10, 30, 32, 

47, 49-54- 

Parker, Theodore, 9, 53. 

Parliament, debates in, 61, 76. 

Parliamentary History of Eng- 
land, 61 ; excerpts from, 76-88. 

Paterson, William, 176. 



511 



Source Problems in United States History 



Pendleton, Mr., 243. 

Pennsylvania, 220, 250. 

Percy, Lord, 8. 

Pettis, 334. 

Phinney, Elias, History of the 

Battle of Lexington, 9, 45. 
Pickens, Fort, 492, 501. 
Pickens, Governor, 479, 482, 

493, 494- 
Pickering, Timothy, 281, 322. 
Pierce, William, 130, 163. 
Pinkney (Pinckney), Charles, 

163. 
Pitcairn, Major, 8, 11, 16-23, 

38, 40, 41, 48. 
Pitt, William, speeches, 77, 81, 95. 
Planters, power of in the South, 

Pre-emption, 272. 

Presbyterian Church, 194, 210; 
convention of, 252. 

Presbyterian Synod of New York, 
188. 

Presbyterian Synod of Philadel- 
phia, 222; letter to, 205, 210; 
minister of, 210. 

Presbyterians, 186, 188-189, 192- 
193, 206 note I, 210-213, 216 
note, 222, 229, 232. 

Presbytery of Hanover, 238. 

Presbytery of Newcastle, 212. 

Prince William County, 237. 

Principles and Acts of the Revolu- 
tion in America, 61; excerpts 
from, 75-76. 

Proceedings of the Convention of 
Delegates, etc., 195; excerpts 
from, 237. 

Pro-slavery Argument, 374. 

Q 

Quakers, 220, 223, 232, 254. 

R 

Randolph, Peyton, 215. 
Records of the Federal Convention 



of 1787, 130, 281; excerpts 
from, 163-170, 317, 322. 

Records of the Presbyterian Church, 
etc., 194; excerpts from, 205, 
210-212. 

Register of Debates in Congress, 
280-281; excerpts from, 307- 
310, 312-315, 325-326, 328- 
335, 337-345, 349-353. 354- 
365. 

Religious liberty, 184, 190, 236, 
263; progress of, 243-244. 

Religious toleration, 183, 189, 
202. 

Reports of Cases . . .in the General 
Court (Maryland), 132; ex- 
cerpts from, 178. 

Reports of Cases Ruled and Ad- 
judged (Pennsylvania), 131; 
excerpts from, 176. 

Reports of the Secretary of the 
Treasury, etc., 282; excerpts 
from, 345-349. 

Revere, Paul, 39. 

Review of the Debate, etc., by T. 
R. Dew, 373-374; excerpts 
from, 384-394. 

Rhode Island, 250. 

Rhodes, J. F., History of the 
United States, 448, 463; ex- 
cerpt from, 498. 

Roan, Rev. Mr., 189, 212-213, 
214. 

Robbins, John, deposition, 31. 

Robertson, David, Debates of 
Convention, etc., 279-280; ex- 
cerpts from, 299-307. 

Robinson, Senator, 350. 

Rockingham County, 248-249. 

Rowland, Kate Mason, 236. 

Rush, Richard, 338, 345, 352. 

Rutlidge, John (Rutledge), 167. 

Ryder, Sir D., 231. 



St. Clair, Mr., 308. 
St. Peter's Parish, 231. 



512 



Index 



Salem Gazette, 7, 11; excerpts 
from, 24. 

Sanderson, Elijah, deposition, 28. 

Scalping, charges of, 8, 11, 41, 44. 

Scotch-Irish, in Pennsylvania, 
370. 

Scott, Gen. Winfield, 451, 463, 
477-478, 499, 500. 

Sectionalism, 270-276, 319. 

Semple, Robert B., 196, 255. 

Separation of State and Church 
in Virginia, 196; excerpts 
from, 246, 252. 

Seward, F. W., Life of Seward, 
450. 

vSeward, W. H., 491, 495. 

Shelburne, Earl of, 92. 

Shelton, Joseph, 218. 

Sherman, 321. 

Sketches of Virginia, etc., 195; 
230 note; excerpts from, 213- 
214, 217-218, 223-230, 238, 
239, 252-255. 

Slave-owners, and the Revolu- 
tion, 370. 

Slave trade, abolished, 387. 

Slavery, in Virginia, 323, 358, 
369; in the Soiith, 369; a 
national issue, 371; vs. in- 
dustry, 372; abolished in Penn- 
sylvania, 377-379; effect of 
on morals, 380, 391, 421; in- 
justice of, 401 ; and the spirit 
of caste, 408; and possible 
race war, 409; in the District 
of Columbia, 410; and the 
Constitution, 410; and military 
training, 422; rights of, 427; 
barbarism of, 427. 

Slaves, clear the lands of the 
South, 386; value of, in Vir- 
ginia, 389; value of, in 1840, 
398; fugitive, return of, 399; 
supposed happiness of, 402; 
women, 404; property rights 
in, 406; labor of, and its prod- 
uct, 416; representatives of, in 
Congress, 371 ; fidelity to 



masters, 423; the wards of 

their masters, 435. 
Smith, Lieutenant- Colonel, 8, 10, 

II, 18, 24, 26, 27, 48, 49. 
Smith, Timothy, deposition, 33. 
South, duty of, to defend slavery, 

432-433. 
South Carolina, 252. 
South Carolina Commissioners, 

472-473, 479- 
South Carolina Congressmen, 

interview, 444, 459, 473, 476. 
Spaight, Richard Dobbs, 157, 

159- 

Speeches of the Governors of 
Massachusetts, etc., see Massa- 
chusetts State Papers. 

Sprague, 354. 

Stamp Act, 60, 61, 76. 

Stamp Act Congress, Resolu- 
tions, 75. 

Star of the West, 479, 480. 

State Documents on Federal Rela- 
tions, 127. 

State of Religion among the Protes- 
tant Dissenters, etc., 194; ex- 
cerpts from, 212. 

Statutes at Large, from Magna 
Charter, 194; excerpts from, 
203-205. 

Statutes at Large of Pennsylvania, 
372; excerpts from, 377-379. 

Statutes at Large (Virginia), 194; 
excerpts from, 204, 263. 

vStiles, Ezra, Diary, 8; excerpts 
from, 21. 

Stovall, P. A., Life of Robert 
Toombs, 449. 

Sumner, Charles, The Barbarism 
of Slavery, 374; excerpts from, 
427-432. 



Tariff, 273-276, 278, 337-338, 

347-350, 355-356, 361. 
Tennent, G., 213. 
Tidd, Wm., depositions, 51. 



513 



Source Problems in United States History 



Todd, Mr., 220, 231. 
Trescot, W. H., 454, 465. 
Trevett vs. Weeden, 129, 143. 
Tucker, St. George, Dissertation 

on Slavery, etc., 373; excerpts 

from, 381-384. 
Tyler, M. C, Patrick Henry, 60; 

excerpts from, 73. 



U 

Underwood, Joseph, deposition, 
52. 



Van Home's Lessee vs. Dorrance, 

176. 
Vattel, Emmerich de, see Law of 

Nations; excerpts from, 137- 

139, 72 note. 
Varnum, James M., 129, 143. 
Vergennes, 269. 
Viner's Abridgment, 139, 140. 
\'^irginia Resolutions, 60, 73. 
\'irginia Toleration Act, 204. 



W 

Walker, L. P., 502. 
War of the Rebellion: . . . Official 
Records, 444; excerpts from, 

451. 453» 462, 472, 473. 476, 
502-505. 
Washington, George, 275, 310- 

311. 
Waterhouse, Dr. Benjamin, 324. 
Watkins, Edward, 214. 
Watkins, Thomas, 214. 
Webster, Daniel, 275, 278, 354, 

358, 361, 363-364- 

Weed, Thurlow, 495. 

Weiss, John, Ltfe of Theodore 
Parker, 9, 53. 

Whitefield, Rev. Mr., 186, 221. 

Whittington vs. Polk, 178. 

Wigfall, Colonel, 465. 

Willard, Thomas Price, deposi- 
tion, 28. 

Wilson, James, 164, 168; Works, 
131; excerpts from, 1 74-1 76. 

Winship, Samuel, deposition, 29. 

Winsor, Justin, editor, 8, 19. 

Wythe, Judge, 141. 



THE END 



JUN 8-1949 



v* «. ^ * ° ' 



-' 'f>.o^ 



v^ 




%^x<^ _^i^lto ^^-.,# 









^^^ 









^%i, 



"".% 









^^ ^^ ^:^^>r^^ ^ - 






l^^f^f'*- 



.^ °^ 



'.-^^ 







» / '^ " " ^^'' t ■< • » / "^ 



- - - V\-^-i vZ-'J. ^ - > 




















/.-—< 



•:^^ 



^<5¥/- -'^ 



. V * . Vt 



^^'^^^^^ ^* ^ 



.4' ^ 






V 














<,<(? -^ /-< 
























V 












aO 



u 






c 



•0^ s- ^ * " 



%./' =r>M'V: % <^ ^^ 









"^^^ ^i^i'° ^c^ 



\ 






^^sP.'^^t^^^^;^/^ 















%0^ 

i o 






- ,^ <^ 



Q^ '^- 



V ^ ^ * ° / 








Q^ ^^^ 






c^^^V"'.'^<P 



'j^& 

-^o,. 









V . , ^^ 



% 

:'.\^ 



.^^■<^ ^^wm: ^^ 



.^^ 















,^ .V^?^-A:% .^. \^:- 



--.^^^ 





















.^•^ °^. 









,^ °^ 



..^^ 



^°^" 
-.%. 



\' 



\* 



>.•«- 






:c<i 



^. n< 






